Non-Belief and the Inner Self

[Random]

I believe in my Inner Self. So there. :yes:

 

[Storm]

I'm just saying that we tend to see generalizations as inherently bad a lot of times without stopping to consider that they could be true.

I'm not saying that generalizations are inherently bad, and I never meant to. I do think that some generalizations are reasonable, and others are not, and the more sweeping the generalization, the less likely it is to be reasonable.

"Believers" are far too diverse to generalize with a single opinion. It would be like if I said "Men think women are stupid." That's why I asked - politely, I thought - him not to make such sweeping generalizations.

Let me ask you this: Would you honestly have had the same response, had I posted the original post that started this?

Yep. I honestly don't see how my post could be taken as an attack.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But would they agree so emphatically with my statement, "religion or belief in the supernatural is unnecessary for human fulfillment and meaning"?

Who knows?,.. I can only speak for myself.
I consider 'religion' to be a practice that is meant to bring to fulfillment the innate destiny of man.
I do not consider a mere 'belief' in religion or the supernatural is in itself sufficient for human fulfillment.

Religion has a vested interest in setting itself up as the only game in town.
Are you claiming that the religious are never known to warn of the unfortunate consequences of non-belief?

I don't claim anything myself, but I do take note of your claim.
Please consider what I have stated above concerning mere 'belief',.. it not only applies to belief in belief systems, it also applies to belief in non-belief systems!

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I wonder if I'm the only nonreligious person who has a problem with the way religion has attempted to monopolize the individual's search for meaning. It seems that society sees people who don't believe in gods, mysticism, or life after death as emotionally stunted and amoral.

No, just not following their logic to its ultimate conclusion.

Believers would have us think of the world as divided between outer and inner reality.

Just the opposite...and you know that if did a little investigating.

The outside is the domain of scientific models and empirical testing.

The boundaries are drawn from within. "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]." This is from the Gospel of Thomas.

According to religious people, the inside is the soul, the domain of religious mysteries and spiritual truth. Is this realistic?

Yes.

If people want to occupy their time seeking the 'divine truth within,' that's their business. But for believers to suggest that that's the only responsible way to become a fulfilled person is like a hammer-maker denying the existence of other tools.

Aren't you trying to build a house with one tool? Most religionists have less of a problem with science and reason than you have with religion.

In my opinion, religion or belief in the supernatural is unnecessary for human fulfillment and meaning. A loving family, engagement with art and science, and an open imagination are also important facets of the development of the individual's inner self.

Take atheism, take your logic, to its ultimate conclusion and what do you have? Nietzsche's passionate embrace of life's tragedy and ultimate doom. You may be able to ignore the reality on the conscious level, but if it's not just denial, if the reality isn't there even at the unconscious level, then you are, indeed, "emotionally stunted."

 

[Escéptico]

Who knows?,.. I can only speak for myself.
I consider 'religion' to be a practice that is meant to bring to fulfillment the innate destiny of man.
I do not consider a mere 'belief' in religion or the supernatural is in itself sufficient for human fulfillment.

Okay. So if mere belief in religion is insufficient for fulfillment, can I assume that nonbelief puts me completely out of the running?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Okay. So if mere belief in religion is insufficient for fulfillment, can I assume that nonbelief puts me completely out of the running?

All belief is insufficient for fulfillment, there is no discrimination. Whether it is a theistic belief or a atheistic belief, belief in itself is merely conceptual speculation. Concepts are merely symbols that are meant to represent a truth, but the truth itself is not a symbol.

 

[Escéptico]

Simple question, Ben. I don't intend to practice religion, so in your opinion am I excluded from fulfillment of my human destiny?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Simple question, Ben. I don't intend to practice religion, so in your opinion am I excluded from fulfillment of my human destiny?

The fulfillment of human destiny is not dependent on mere mortal opinions.

 

[Escéptico]

The fulfillment of human destiny is not dependent on mere mortal opinions.

And yet you seemed so emphatic in your opinion that the practice of religion is meant to attain the true fulfillment of human destiny.

 

[Willamena]

Take atheism, take your logic, to its ultimate conclusion and what do you have? Nietzsche's passionate embrace of life's tragedy and ultimate doom.

Neitzsche was mystic.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Neitzsche was mystic.

He was strongly atheistic and, from listening to the university lectures (Professors Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins), I would hardly classify him as a "mystic."

 

[Random]

Neitzsche was mystic.

Holy Jeebus, Patty...:no: The virtual opposite of "mystic"...

 

[Magic Man]

He was strongly atheistic and, from listening to the university lectures (Professors Robert Solomon and Kathleen Higgins), I would hardly classify him as a "mystic."

Atheism and mysticism aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[Random]

Atheism and mysticism aren't mutually exclusive.

No, but materialism and reductionism, so beloved of Atheists, is mutually exclusive with real mysticism. Anything else is just make-believe, pretence...

 

[Magic Man]

No, but materialism and reductionism, so beloved of Atheists, is mutually exclusive with real mysticism. Anything else is just make-believe, pretence...

So, all atheists love materialism and reductionism, huh? Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to pass that on to all of the eastern religion followers.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Atheism and mysticism aren't mutually exclusive.

Didn't say it was. I only said that Nietzsche wasn't a mystic however insightful some of his philosophy was. However, I'm still debating what you said in my own head. Even atheistic Buddhism is rooted in non-atheistic beliefs (Hinduism).

P.S. I agree with your signature.

 

[Willamena]

*shrug* Obviously "being mystic" means something specific to each of you, as it does to me. I see in what small bit of Nietzsche's works that have been quoted in threads about mysticism on these forums an understanding not possible if one is not themselves a mystic.

 

[Willamena]

No, but materialism and reductionism, so beloved of Atheists, is mutually exclusive with real mysticism. Anything else is just make-believe, pretence...

Materialism and reductionism do not an atheist make.

 

[Random]

Materialism and reductionism do not an atheist make.

Perhaps, but generally they are what the atheist is left with when their version of reality is stripped of God and belief in the supernatural.

 

[Willamena]

Perhaps, but generally they are what the atheist is left with when their version of reality is stripped of God and belief in the supernatural.

Are you implying that we all begin life with an image of God and a belief in the supernatural intact?