Is it better to be a believer or an athiest?

[doppelganger]

Okay, good, so the inner realm and the outer, then. What is your vision of Atheistic transcendence beyond science, as you mentioned before? I mean you personally, not just Zen, Taoism or Pantheism as paths.

Surely you know better than to suggest that there's no transcendent experience in the life of someone who identifies his or her self as "atheist," Conor. You're wiser than that. :yes:

 

[science_is_my_god]

Now, may I point out that I think your argument is good, and I am not saying that the theistic perspective I wish to outline below refutes it or is superior in any way, but I just wish to air the theistic perspective in a relatively coherent way in comparison to some of the ways it is aired from my experience of other forums:

The theistic perspective of what you are saying is that religious faith occurs when you "let go" of the purely scientific, and instead rely on faith. In a sense, God would view it as a personal challenge to you to decrease your reliance on facts and evidence and instead proceed with reliance on a more spiritual kind of affirmation.

I would like to point out the fact that as a human being, with the personality "god" supposedly gave me, I find it unreasonable to "let go" of not only what I find true in science, but to what is obtainable through the human senses, because I can not be sure that a "spiritual" aspect exists outside of the human imagination. And if a god wants me to do so, I will not, because if a god created my own logic, and created something illogical (i.e.- "spirituality") I would take that as him wanting me to either believe or disbelieve in "spirituality." And since I disbelieve it's existence, my action is justified, based on what reasoning he gave me.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I would like to point out the fact that as a human being, with the personality "god" supposedly gave me, I find it unreasonable to "let go" of not only what I find true in science, but to what is obtainable through the human senses, because I can not be sure that a "spiritual" aspect exists outside of the human imagination. And if a god wants me to do so, I will not, because if a god created my own logic, and created something illogical (i.e.- "spirituality") I would take that as him wanting me to either believe or disbelieve in "spirituality." And since I disbelieve it's existence, my action is justified, based on what reasoning he gave me.

I never said you had to let go of what was true in science, in fact I made it quite clear that the only reasonable faith is to look beyond the boundaries of whatever science could ever hope to explain: the ultimates and purposive.

It simply does not come under the banner of (il)logicality. Good religion, In my view, doesn't defy science or logic, save it be the concept of a few miracles. It identifies itself with what is beyond the capabilities of science to define. Seemingly extraneous, perhaps, but not illogical. There is no purely logical foundation in dismissing religious or supernatural belief in its entirety as the naturalist (by definition) does. Naturalism just doesn't go there.

That's why I don't see it as a betrayal of logic or science to explore the spiritual. Perhaps you do.

 

[logician]

" identifies itself with what is beyond the capabilities of science to define."

So what, this really doesn't mean squat.

 

[Random]

Surely you know better than to suggest that there's no transcendent experience in the life of someone who identifies his or her self as "atheist," Conor. You're wiser than that. :yes:

Dude, I'm not suggesting that @ all. No way.

I was just asking Profane what his idea of transcendence was beyond his Pantheism as a way or path.

When I was an Atheist, I pursued mysticism looking for truth under the assumption there was no God to be found. I was wrong.

 

[Random]

Sorry, I feel no need to justify myself to you at this time. But thank you for asking.

Well, personal justification wasn't what I was looking for...I'm sorry that's how you read it.

 

[Popeyesays]

My problem with the Pascal's wager is that you are accepting something that you don't believe, as an insurance. That's to me, strike the nerve of being a hypocrite.

Either I fully believe in God or gods, and then join the religion, or I don't believe in their existence and not join in any religion. It is important that I remain true to myself, instead of placing wager on both religion and atheism.

Heck, I don't even like to gamble! :bonk:

Pascal's Wager is morally bankrupt, the Bible even addresses it refering to the "lukewarm" being cast out.

Blatant hypocrisy at best, disgustingly blatant hypocrisy at worst.

Regards,
Scott

 

[doppelganger]

When I was an Atheist, I pursued mysticism looking for truth under the assumption there was no God to be found. I was wrong.

Whether there's a "God to be found" is just window dressing. You're letting yourself get caught up far too easily in the signs.

 

[fantome profane]

Well, personal justification wasn't what I was looking for...I'm sorry that's how you read it.

Could you be more specific and tell me what you are looking for? I hope you are not asking me to explain a mystical experience, I don’t think I can do that either. But if you are not asking for my personal experience, and you are not claiming that atheists cannot have a transcendent experience, then what are you asking for?

 

[3.14]

A:
Worst Case: neutral...After death...he'll cease to exist..
Best Case: He goes to heaven

B:
Worst Case: torture in hell
Best Case: neutral...ceases to exit...

wel actualy it more like
A:
Worst Case: he gets called crazy during life unable to expirience everything in life and then dies without afterlife.
Best Case: noone cares he gets some freebies from the church for being member and if he was good he gets a happy afterlife

B:
Worst Case: god is mad at him for not beleiving but since hes omnibenevolant he goes to heaven or hell depending on his actions
Best Case: while alive able to experiance it all able to learn far more (and without bais) and dies then slowly decays into nutriciants for plants

 

[Random]

Whether there's a "God to be found" is just window dressing. You're letting yourself get caught up far too easily in the signs.

What "signs"? God is both the sign and the thing signified.

 

[Magic Man]

What "signs"? God is both the sign and the thing signified.

"God" is the sign we give to the signified, which we can't completely understand.

 

[Random]

"God" is the sign we give to the signified, which we can't completely understand.

Well, no offense, but I understand it perfectly. So you speak for yourself, OK, but not me.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, no offense, but I understand it perfectly. So you speak for yourself, OK, but not me.

Then you're not human?

 

[Random]

Then you're not human?

I am not your kind of human, obviously. What constitutes humanity in your mind and mine I'll bet are greatly differing things.

 

[Magic Man]

I am not your kind of human, obviously. What constitutes humanity in your mind and mine I'll bet are greatly differing things.

It probably does, but, unless you're superhuman, then there's no way you can have all the answers. You can think you have them, as some people do, but it's impossible for our limitted minds to comprehend the totality of what is called "God".

 

[Random]

It probably does, but, unless you're superhuman, then there's no way you can have all the answers. You can think you have them, as some people do, but it's impossible for our limitted minds to comprehend the totality of what is called "God".

This is a cheap skeptic trick called "Impossible Perfection". You've just raised the standard of validity for the argument to an impossibly high level, so that you don't have to confront the actuality of what I'm saying. Go learn how to debate honestly, please...

 

[Magic Man]

This is a cheap skeptic trick called "Impossible Perfection". You've just raised the standard of validity for the argument to an impossibly high level, so that you don't have to confront the actuality of what I'm saying. Go learn how to debate honestly, please...

Sorry that my means of debate show the inadequacy of your argument. I thought that was part of the idea. It has nothing to do with perfection. Do you really think you understand everything there is in life?

 

[doppelganger]

What "signs"? God is both the sign and the thing signified.

No wonder you're so confused.

 

[Random]

No wonder you're so confused.

Explain, then. And don't be pedantic, please. How do YOU know I'm confused, and what gives you the right to patronize me this way?