Thoughts on beliefs

[yotimbo]

What is an agnostic theist?


I wouldn't describe that as 'militantly atheist', just an atheist. To me, militant atheists are the ones who start arguments and want to take things away from other people because they don't believe in it. People like Ricky Gervais where my reaction is "for someone who doesn't believe in something, you dedicate way too much of your time thinking and talking about it." Even as a strong atheist those people were annoying, just as bad as the hardcore bible bumpers who would look for any opportunity to shove it down your throat.

I'm still trying to figure out my own feelings on religion but if it helps you to understand how I believe there could be a God it was all about feelings. As I said I was depressed and suicidal for over 4 years and one day the idea of religion started nagging me out of nowhere and then the Jesus t-shirt appeared in my house. I don't know how that happened but it was enough to say I'll try it out, just to humour the idea. After a few days of reading bits of the bible and attempting to pray, I was feeling a lot better. I was smiling again, feeling more confident and went days without drinking without even thinking about it. Before that I was getting drunk every night just because that seemed to be the only part of the day where time moved.

It was almost certainly a placebo effect but it worked, and if it works then what's the harm? The problem is that I didn't stick with any of it and don't practice any religion and those old feelings creep back every now and then and are growing stronger and more frequent. I want to try and commit to it because the first time felt good and made it feel easy but I have too many doubts and questions about religion and I worry I'm too weak to change my behaviour for the long term. I believe there is a God in some form because the experience was so weird, almost too convenient, but also because it worked for me and helped me. I don't know for sure what happens when we die, and frankly I don't care. I'm alive now and I just want to feel something.

The reason people like Ricky Gervais talk so much about atheism is because of the annoyance of childhood experience being indoctrinated into a belief system that turns out to be questionable. If your belief makes you feel better and helped you through depression then thats fair enough even if it does sound a bit like a comfort blanket. The point we try to put across is simple which is that we think the god hypothesis should be treated like any other unknown and as scientists we cannot find a single piece of evidence to support the existence of a supernatural authority. The earth is 4.5 billion years old our existence here is a blink of an eye and human beings will be gone in another blink of an eye . What happens after we die is that our genes live on through our children and then their children and that is magnificent enough to comfort me.

 

[yotimbo]

[QUOTE="Nitro, post: 380989, member: 3886
More or less,I have my bases covered no matter what was actually in charge of the beginning.


The beginning of what? The Universe , the milky way , life on planet earth or the human race

 

[Nitro]

[QUOTE="Nitro, post: 380989, member: 3886
More or less,I have my bases covered no matter what was actually in charge of the beginning.


The beginning of what? The Universe , the milky way , life on planet earth or the human race

life on earth

 

[sardonic17]

I don't think there is the beginning and due to that a prime mover is unnecessary. My belief or disbelief is dependent on necessity. My belief is somewhat derived from process philosophy which harkens back to everything is fire. Basically, I deny the concept of thing-in-itself and see a pattern of processes that interact in constant flux. The patterns of course are illusory... given enough blind interactions there will eventually be a semblance of patterns (things, ideas, constructs, etc.).

 

[yotimbo]

I don't think there is the beginning and due to that a prime mover is unnecessary. My belief or disbelief is dependent on necessity. My belief is somewhat derived from process philosophy which harkens back to everything is fire. Basically, I deny the concept of thing-in-itself and see a pattern of processes that interact in constant flux. The patterns of course are illusory... given enough blind interactions there will eventually be a semblance of patterns (things, ideas, constructs, etc.).

This is quite fascinating, which my modest brain is trying to understand. Do you believe that human beings exist in a biological physical sense ? Or are you suggesting that all of our reality is some kind of illusion.

 

[sardonic17]

This is quite fascinating, which my modest brain is trying to understand. Do you believe that human beings exist in a biological physical sense ? Or are you suggesting that all of our reality is some kind of illusion.

There is still physical reality, and this perspective still accounts for it. When atoms interact they never actually make contact but rather their energies react to each other. We talk of electron clouds in an atom because we cannot predict a precise singularity instead we give it a probability placement. Even actual singularities have lost that status with the event horizon quantum wobble. The reason we cannot place something at a specific place at a specific time is because of the inherent flux and movement of existence. We give solidity to things by recognising patterns in the movement. A river was a great example that Heraclitus had. The river is a pattern of movement and we call it a river but internally it is never the same.

In fact, in order to have a thing in itself one must appeal to a beyond to give it form because observable reality doesn't support it. This is the appeal to God, Mathematics, Plato's Forms, Kant's a priori appeal to the metaphysical, the soul, etc.

When I say that the patterns are illusory I guess I mean they lack permanence. A pattern may develop but it should not be considered a singular thing that will always be. The singularity is illusory, the pattern is ephemeral.

 

[yotimbo]

There is still physical reality, and this perspective still accounts for it. When atoms interact they never actually make contact but rather their energies react to each other. We talk of electron clouds in an atom because we cannot predict a precise singularity instead we give it a probability placement. Even actual singularities have lost that status with the event horizon quantum wobble. The reason we cannot place something at a specific place at a specific time is because of the inherent flux and movement of existence. We give solidity to things by recognising patterns in the movement. A river was a great example that Heraclitus had. The river is a pattern of movement and we call it a river but internally it is never the same.

In fact, in order to have a thing in itself one must appeal to a beyond to give it form because observable reality doesn't support it. This is the appeal to God, Mathematics, Plato's Forms, Kant's a priori appeal to the metaphysical, the soul, etc.

When I say that the patterns are illusory I guess I mean they lack permanence. A pattern may develop but it should not be considered a singular thing that will always be. The singularity is illusory, the pattern is ephemeral.

Right ! I wasn't sure at first but you have just confirmed. If you are going to put forward an argument for any kind of concept that human beings will understand then here is a friendly word of caution. We (autistic or otherwise) are rarely impressed by big words and

There is still physical reality, and this perspective still accounts for it. When atoms interact they never actually make contact but rather their energies react to each other. We talk of electron clouds in an atom because we cannot predict a precise singularity instead we give it a probability placement. Even actual singularities have lost that status with the event horizon quantum wobble. The reason we cannot place something at a specific place at a specific time is because of the inherent flux and movement of existence. We give solidity to things by recognising patterns in the movement. A river was a great example that Heraclitus had. The river is a pattern of movement and we call it a river but internally it is never the same.

In fact, in order to have a thing in itself one must appeal to a beyond to give it form because observable reality doesn't support it. This is the appeal to God, Mathematics, Plato's Forms, Kant's a priori appeal to the metaphysical, the soul, etc.

When I say that the patterns are illusory I guess I mean they lack permanence. A pattern may develop but it should not be considered a singular thing that will always be. The singularity is illusory, the pattern is ephemeral.

Yeh right , far out man. So to answer my question then?

 

[yotimbo]

There is still physical reality, and this perspective still accounts for it. When atoms interact they never actually make contact but rather their energies react to each other. We talk of electron clouds in an atom because we cannot predict a precise singularity instead we give it a probability placement. Even actual singularities have lost that status with the event horizon quantum wobble. The reason we cannot place something at a specific place at a specific time is because of the inherent flux and movement of existence. We give solidity to things by recognising patterns in the movement. A river was a great example that Heraclitus had. The river is a pattern of movement and we call it a river but internally it is never the same.

In fact, in order to have a thing in itself one must appeal to a beyond to give it form because observable reality doesn't support it. This is the appeal to God, Mathematics, Plato's Forms, Kant's a priori appeal to the metaphysical, the soul, etc.

When I say that the patterns are illusory I guess I mean they lack permanence. A pattern may develop but it should not be considered a singular thing that will always be. The singularity is illusory, the pattern is ephemeral.

Im sorry and im sure it will upset people but this is the biggest load of pig **** ive ever heard in my life. What the hell are you on about we live on a lump of mud spinning at 900 mps whirling around a sub atomic nuclear fire ball everyone on this mud is gonna be gone soon anyway and you believe this is important!!

 

[yotimbo]

There is still physical reality, and this perspective still accounts for it. When atoms interact they never actually make contact but rather their energies react to each other. We talk of electron clouds in an atom because we cannot predict a precise singularity instead we give it a probability placement. Even actual singularities have lost that status with the event horizon quantum wobble. The reason we cannot place something at a specific place at a specific time is because of the inherent flux and movement of existence. We give solidity to things by recognising patterns in the movement. A river was a great example that Heraclitus had. The river is a pattern of movement and we call it a river but internally it is never the same.

In fact, in order to have a thing in itself one must appeal to a beyond to give it form because observable reality doesn't support it. This is the appeal to God, Mathematics, Plato's Forms, Kant's a priori appeal to the metaphysical, the soul, etc.

When I say that the patterns are illusory I guess I mean they lack permanence. A pattern may develop but it should not be considered a singular thing that will always be. The singularity is illusory, the pattern is ephemeral.

Patterns are illusory ??? Read some books for christs sake , learn something you idiot child brained freak.

 

[yotimbo]

life on earth

Life began 4 billion years ago . Nothing was in charge of it , 2000 years ago a wandering prophet called jesus showed up and then a new one called allah about 500 years later neither of which were very goodlooking .

 

[sardonic17]

Right ! I wasn't sure at first but you have just confirmed. If you are going to put forward an argument for any kind of concept that human beings will understand then here is a friendly word of caution. We (autistic or otherwise) are rarely impressed by big words and

Yeh right , far out man. So to answer my question then?

I thought I did

There is still physical reality, and this perspective still accounts for it.

And...

When I say that the patterns are illusory I guess I mean they lack permanence.

My word choice is exactly the best way of saying something for me. I apologize that it is difficult for me to simplify it further but I don't believe I should have to when a topic like this comes up. Philosophy is my special interest and all the language involved with it tends to be complex.

Let me be clear, I'm not trying to impress and the language isn't intentionally bloated. I do deliberate on my word choice methodically because I want to have the right words for the ideas being conveyed. If they are unclear, I welcome the opportunity to clarify.

However, if you desired a simple yes or no answer, then yes to the former and no to the latter.

 

[sardonic17]

Patterns are illusory ??? Read some books for christs sake , learn something you idiot child brained freak.

I amended it in that post. I chose the wrong word originally. Ephemeral was a better choice (fleeting or temporary could work too but lacks the proper connotation). I don't understand why you would resort to name calling. Does the original premise cause a grievance?

 

[enantiodromia]

I am a Secular Humanist, which is essentially an Atheist perspective. That said, I'm also a lifelong "religious and spiritual tourist," having explored a wide range of religions and other spiritual paths through active participation. The following comments are inspired by @MrSpock 's contributions to this thread, and are the sum of what I've learned from my experiences and reflections on this subject.

It's interesting when you consider that the two groups of people who have the most in common in their general outlook on religion are actually Atheists and the most fundamentalist/orthodox religionists... though granted, their ultimate conclusions about the value of religion in people's lives are polar opposites. But both groups take the view that religion is meant as a be-all, end-all proposition in which a deity (and the religious texts ascribed to that deity's viewpoint) are meant to effectively run adherents' lives for them. Yet when you talk to most regular people of faith—the quiet Majority in the Middle—you find that isn't nearly the prevailing attitude.

When @Sylar wrote, "Having faith in something doesn't remove personal responsibility or stop you from being a terrible person," MrSpock responded, "Then what is it good for?"

The way most people approach their religion of choice is actually very smart—and quite nuanced, whether they're conscious of that or not. They use the tenets and texts as a functional frame work to guide behavior. Not dictate, guide. They partner with them. They use them as a resource (and not necessarily the ONLY one) for internal dialogue, and dialogue with others, about moral questions and personal situations and interactions. They understand that while religious instructions provide them with a useful axis, they ultimately do have to figure things out on their own. And they're comfortable with that. Because they aren't just sheep looking to have everything prescribed for them, or for a way out of taking personal responsibility.

Humans are inherently communal and collaborative. Sharing in a religion is an excellent facilitator of both community and cooperative efforts. All humans make coherent order out of the chaos of life and ideas through investment in their various identities, and religious identity can be an especially helpful one for this because religion addresses so many aspects of the human experience. I am lucky to have a lot of friends, and many, many acquaintances through a lifetime of travels and various associations. Of all these, I've met very few people who use religion like a crutch or an answer for everything. They don't think that's what it's for. And they don't have to "twist" words from religious texts around to fit their real-time, personal situations. They make comparisons, make associations, just like humans do in interactions with information just generally.

People of some groups with a history of oppression rely more heavily on their religion because historically it's often all they've had for strength and sustenance. They've needed it more, since the law of the land and the exercise of that law has so often disappointed them, excluded them, even actively worked against them. Religion and faith, on the other hand, haven't let them down. Their churches, mosques, synagogues, and words from their texts have been their rocks—umbrellas against the storm where they can stand with other people who share their experience. So they may talk about religion more. They may look to it more, and more obviously. But that doesn't mean they're weak-minded or irrational. It means they have uncommon insight into and experience with its positive value.

Religion and faith are far too complex, far too personal, for blanket, black-and-white characterizations. Never mind to summarily dismiss. "Then what's it good for?" is a very big question... One a person should only bother asking if they are truly open to accepting affirmative answers.

 

[dragonwolf]

The reason people like Ricky Gervais talk so much about atheism is because of the annoyance of childhood experience being indoctrinated into a belief system that turns out to be questionable.

In Heathenry, we like to call that "Christian baggage." In the United States, everyone has some, even the nonreligious, because the Christian worldview informs much of our society.

One of the first stages to shedding it, in my experience, is anger and "rebellion." People lash out against it, which makes sense.

For better or worse, a great many people stay stuck in this stage, instead of moving on and basing their worldview on what they are, believe, and value, as opposed to a foundation of "nots."

I will be the first to put my belief out there.
I consider myself an agnostic theist. My belief structure is also scientific in nature,but with a common denominator of there being too much order to the living world for it to have been a random petri dish happenstance that formed life as we know it.

My thought are that any belief or non-belief system a person chooses is fine by me and if that is what they cling to to make sense of it all,then so be it.

It is very important to consider that all forms of belief are what comes from inside a person,and not subject to what others think it should be for the next individual

My religion is Heathen, but it's hard to explain how it translates to belief in the sense that most people understand it.

Thanks to Christianity, there's this idea that belief in one or more deities means belief in personal deities. Even (especially?) in the responses by the atheists here, I see that Christian influence.

I believe beings that we call "gods" exist, in large part because I find it arrogant to believe that we're the most intelligent or advanced species out there. Science and math both say that odds are relatively good that we're not. Add in the multiverse hypothesis and the idea that there are more dimensions than we are capable of comprehending, and it becomes even less likely that we're alone. The beings that we call gods, then, may very well be capable of influencing our world or our perception in ways we don't understand, by virtue of them existing in the "higher" dimensions.

Do I believe they care about us as individuals? Not really. I see them more as background/white noise. Heathenry as a subject generally "teaches" (for lack of a better word) that the gods are to us what we are to an ant colony. The superior being doesn't much care about the inferior on an individual level, and the inferior being is better off that way.

The more prominent aspects of the Heathen worldview are ancestors and community. While other beings inhabit our world, and they deserve our due respect (this includes those we can see and perceive, as well as those we cannot), family and community are the centerpiece. Without them, we wither and die.

The worldview, then, is built around building, strengthening, and maintaining those bonds. It provides a common foundation for expectations when interacting, as well as common definitions for particular behaviors.

Our lore generally runs on this assumption. Even the most "religious" texts are taken more as parables. Lessons to be learned and applied to life, as opposed to taken literally wholesale.

Some parts are kind of designed to be taken mostly literal, but they're comments on specific behaviors, such as how to treat a guest or how to treat a host when you're a guest. A lot of that comes down to "don't be a dick," but the codefication allows for that common foundation among adherents. It's pretty evident, then, which pieces are literal and which are literary.

Hope that makes sense. I think I've rambled enough for one evening.

 

[Calibar]

I believe that somehow humans evolved to make belief in the supernatural quite appealing. Don' know why this is but even though I consider myself a non-believer, somehow I cannot quite remove the idea that there is some moral deity out there. Wish I could. Given that there are many innocent beings that suffer and have horrible lives which are then cut short, I think there is no rational way that I could believe that if there was a deity out there that it cared for our lives. It's like I cannot completely persuade myself by rational means that for all intents and purposes there are no moral gods...

 

[Sir Les Patterson]

I think it would be very nice to have a belief in a God and someone to look after you when you are old and broken down and die. It is a lovely thought and much nicer than, "It stops and your body rots". It is what I believe though, nice or not.

 

[Bella Pines]

New age scientific metaphysicist. I respect Jesus and Mohammad, sometimes follow Seth and Elias and totally worship Gene Roddenberry. But mostly I draw my own conclusions from universal patterns.

 

[Fridgemagnetman]

There is still physical reality, and this perspective still accounts for it. When atoms interact they never actually make contact but rather their energies react to each other. We talk of electron clouds in an atom because we cannot predict a precise singularity instead we give it a probability placement. Even actual singularities have lost that status with the event horizon quantum wobble. The reason we cannot place something at a specific place at a specific time is because of the inherent flux and movement of existence. We give solidity to things by recognising patterns in the movement. A river was a great example that Heraclitus had. The river is a pattern of movement and we call it a river but internally it is never the same.

In fact, in order to have a thing in itself one must appeal to a beyond to give it form because observable reality doesn't support it. This is the appeal to God, Mathematics, Plato's Forms, Kant's a priori appeal to the metaphysical, the soul, etc.

When I say that the patterns are illusory I guess I mean they lack permanence. A pattern may develop but it should not be considered a singular thing that will always be. The singularity is illusory, the pattern is ephemeral.

In fact, in order to have a thing in itself one must appeal to a beyond to give it form

The Holy Spirit!

The upanishads had the universe consisting of name,form and action

Similar to the Father, son (made flesh) and the Holy ghost.

I liken it to the biblical way as saying the same things that you have been expressing.
Great posts.