- Lorenzo Lorenz
- Lusaka
- Zambia
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why have people (Atheists) Chosen not to believe in God? Does this give freedom to live life without becoming answerable to anyone?
Many people are atheists because of the way they were brought up or educated, or because they have simply adopted the beliefs of the culture in which they grew up. So someone raised in Communist China is likely to have no belief in God because the education system and culture make being an atheist the natural thing to do.
"Other people are atheists because they just feel that atheism is right." It is on this premise that i am asking this question.
edward long 100+
Is it necessary to scroll through hundreds of comments to find the one you just were notified of via email? I am spending more time searching than reading. Please remember I am old and technologically challenged. Is there a better way? Anyone?
Mark Meijer 100+
Another useful thing is CTRL-F, to find specific words on the page.
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
Stewart Gault 30+
lack of evidence
the fact that texts once called the holy word of the deities themselves have been proved wrong
conflicting parts within the same texts
similarities or identical stories across the texts
Other gods have been abandoned why not abandon them all
universe does not need a creator to start
not wanting it to be true, as in not wanting an immortal dictator in the sky
the variety of different beliefs
coincidences within books, i.e for the bible murder is bad but genocide's ok as long as god allows it
the horrors committed in the name of religion,
the immoral practices suggested by religion i.e genital mutilation
the dilution of "god" throughout history, from the creator of everything, the cause of sickness, the turner of stars to the modern deistic view of a god who doesn't interfere.
Mixture there of arguments against deism and theism
Gabo Moreno 100+
Stewart Gault 30+
edward long 100+
Gabo Moreno 100+
Luke Monahan
If non-belief is the natural state then the question should be; "why do people believe in God(s)?"
The short answer is that they have been taught to.
Perhaps we Atheists are just slow learners...?
Frans Kellner 100+
They are taught from early on that the first human, Adam, was created and he and all offspring held a kind of relation with that creator known by the name God. So they believe that all ancestors up to the first one were observed by God which they themselves can't see because with Eve man was driven from paradise.
From that perspective your logic makes no sense.
Colleen Steen 500+
Although you say Luke's perspective is not logical for those who grew up in a religious environment, are you actually saying the same thing as Luke?
Luke..."...someone cannot believe in God without being told about the concept."
Frans..."They are taught from early on..."
Frans Kellner 100+
The point I tried to make however was that when born in a house and never ever went outside once you can't know what that house looks like. The conclusion that to not believe in God is natural, is only valid for those that can look from the outside, those that can see the human being as an developing species instead of an instant made, walking talking image of God.
To my humble view both assumptions are untrue to represent the past events in human development.
With language came stories. Before that we were fully connected and aware of the totality of our being. Of course awareness without knowledge for to have knowledge we need to have stories, stories to tell ourselves and each other. With those stories/knowledge man was born and able to edit its own role on the world stage. This editing we call free will.
Seen this way the naïve parable of Adam and Eve has really something to say about the origins of the human race for separation of our true being was a fact and with it paradise was lost.
Colleen Steen 500+
I thought you were both saying the same thing, and thought I'd check, rather than assume:>)
I agree that if one is born into a house, and never ever goes outside, s/he will not know what the house looks like from the outside. I believe this is exactly what many religions do to people. The strick dogma, that often does not make any sense, keeps people from exploring...keeps them frightened, trapped and controlled.
I really like encouraging exploration of the life experience without dogma that is destructive and abusive, often limiting people in an unhealthy way. There certainly are people who use religions as beneficial life guides. However, there are enough fundamentalists/extremists in our world who would like nothing better than to convert everyone to his/her destructive beliefs and practices.
This is part of the reason I do not believe in the concept of a fear based god. and/or religion.
Peter Law 50+
"that non-belief is the natural state"
If you mean non-belief in god, then I agree. However I remember as a child wondering where everything came from. My parents were very evasive on babies; but outright silent on everything else. My mum did drag me along to church for a while. I had no idea what all that was about, & I don't think she had either.
Church notwithstanding however, even as a child I knew full well that there was a lot of explaining to be done as to why everything seemed to be geared around humans. This was my 'natural state'. I 'knew' that there was something that I was ignorant of,& set about trying to find out what it was.
So I was ignorant of why things existed,& I knew I was ignorant. Very frustrating, but that was my 'natural state'; not non-belief, but non-knowing; but fully aware there was an explanation out there.
I may have been an exception, as nobody else seemed at all interested. Still the same today, nobody's bothered. Now that I find amazing!
:-)
Mark Meijer 100+
Stewart Gault 30+
Edward there was nowhere for me to reply to you, I didn't literally mean it in terms of nature.
It's like this, not believing in unicorns is a natural state, you know there's no suggestion of them or reason to think they exist, but when someone says unicorns exist, well then they've left the stage of non belief and now have they have to prove what they've said. Now IF they prove their assertion, it then becomes the natural state. So in modern day a lack of belief in horses is an unnatural state of thinking because they're everywhere. So it's the same for new scientific ideas, someone suggests something, if they prove it it becomes common knowledge. and so forth.
edward long 100+
Luke Monahan
As a child/teenager and even now i suppose I have always been very actively seeking answers to the fundamental questions of life. Philosophy has often been an obsession which has kept me awake at night wondering what free will conceptually is or what the purpose of life itself is among many other things and I've come to a number of unexpected conclusions along the way.
To some extent, I imagine that religion is for many a framing mechanism which guilds the same process of self exploration/discovery/definition in the formative years and onward.
I don't think you're at all strange for having a sense of unfulfilled wonder in your early years and in fact I would consider that as a sign of intelligence in someone. Growing up and even still now, I often feel like some kind of alien because the people around me usually show very little outward signs that they have interest in philosophy or knowledge more than gossip or sports.
I sometimes think that religion for some is a vocabulary as much as anything else. There are stories, morals and meaning in texts which allow you to communicate with others in a unique and in some cases probably a powerful way which wouldn't otherwise be possible.
I don't question that there are valuable answers to important questions in the bible or any other religion but I guess it's a bit like a maths book which has half the right answers. Just because half the answers are right, you can't then assume that they are all right. When you fail in maths because of that faulty maths book, do you question the whole intellectual institution of mathematics or do you question the book?
Obviously you're free to believe and live how you choose but in my opinion, nothing in life should be above scrutiny or critical questioning.
Peter Law 50+
Like you I wonder why people prefer to talk about sports more than the meaning of life. I can understand folks not agreeing on the answer, but not even to ask the question; well I just don't get it.
Another trend is for folks to get all uptight & defensive about their own particular viewpoints; even to the point of going to war over it. My personal search ended in Christianity; I'm pretty sure I'm right, but none of us can be 100%.
Much of the 'religion' in the world is about form & custom; I think my dear Mum was of that ilk. Church was the place for respectable people to go on a Sunday. My Dad had a general store, & was an ardent Atheist, but he enjoyed closing the shop on a Sunday just for the break. Many people send their children to faith schools today, just to teach them discipline & good manners. Religion gives folks a level playing field; a set of common values.
What is actually true in all this is a different question. In my case I have thrown my lot in with the bible, which tells us that this will be a minority view, & will attract a lot of flack. Well it got that right at least.
Whether it is right in everything, I don't know, but I'm willing to bet my soul on it; which, when you think about it, is a bet I cannot possibly lose. Others must seek their own path, & this site is pretty good for exchanging views & generally chewing the fat over what we agree are very important subjects from any viewpoint.
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I guess you have heard of the anthropomorphic principle.
I guess it is at least equally plausible that we could be geared or evolved to suit the environment rather than the universe created for us.
I note it is not that perfect. for humans. Earthquakes, floods, disease, inclement climate, parasites, billions starving etc I know there are religious rationales for some of these. Maybe Eden had no earthquakes. Still 99.999999999999% of the universe would kill us instantly even if we had access to it. Most of the universe is redundant if it is all about humans.
Points at least to the mirrored perspective being worth some consideration.
Peter Law 50+
Yep you're right. We wouldn't be here if the earth wasn't capable of sustaining us. It's so beautiful though, so nearly perfect. And we can understand it, or at least some of it. Galaxies motoring at thousands of mph all over the place & not colliding. Caterpillars melting into a pile of goo & morphing into the most beautiful creature & flying; first go; much to the amazement of our aeronautical engineers. Get out the electron microscope & watch the Liliputians beavering away in their hi-tec factory complexes just to keep us all up & running. It's absolutely awesome.
We live near the beach. We moved here 30 odd years ago, & we used to walk along the sand barefoot. We just loved it, we were so lucky. You know, sometimes a year can go by & we never bother; we've got used to it. The universe is like that, we've learned lots about it, but I think we've gotten used to it. It has lost it's ability to awe us. We truly are 'so lucky'.
:-)
Luke Monahan
Hello Peter,
It sounds like you're alluding to Pacal's wager which suggests that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain but I believe there is a flaw in this wager.
It ignores the possibility that those who believe in religion will go to a place like hell while those which do not will go to a place like heaven.
I'm sure you're probably thinking "Ridiculous!" right now but as unlikely as this reverse scenario might seem, there is as much objective evidence to suggest that it is true as there is objective evidence to suggest that Christians go to heaven and that non-believers go to hell.
They each have no objective evidence and that is why they are equally likely.
There is no hedge bet for something which you have no information about, no matter what you do or believe, you're still going to be just as likely to damn yourself as anyone else is.
Peter Law 50+
Interesting perspective, never heard that one. From my perspective there is loads of evidence, so Pascal's wager is very much a fall-back position. It's strange how two people can look at data & reach opposing conclusions, but that's just the way it is.
I would have thought that anything offering eternal, blissful, life would receive the most careful & open minded scrutiny. However the reality is the very opposite. The very idea invites open hostility. Present company excepted of course; I appreciate your civility.
:-)
Mark Meijer 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
"Wondering where everything came from" and exploring the life adventure with curiosity, is very natural for most children. Actually, I like retaining that part of me, because there will always be new possibilities to explore....in my humble perception:>)
You say..."I may have been an exception, as nobody else seemed at all interested. Still the same today, nobody's bothered. Now that I find amazing!"
How does it serve you to say that nobody else is interested...nobody's bothered? There are many here in this discussion thread and in other TED discussions who have explored this topic extensively (myself included). You seem to think that because people do not agree with you, that they/we must not care...are not interested....are not as intelligent or informed. That is not true Peter. For me, the truth is that I have INDEED explored this topic, and make certain choices for myself regarding how I want to live my life, which, at this point, does not include belief in a god or religious practice.
You are not better or worse than anyone else Peter. Nor are you more informed or more intelligent. In fact, my observation, based on information you have provided, is that you have not explored as much as many people have. You make a choice to be "stuck" with certain controling dogma, and that's ok if it is your choice.
One of the things that keeps pushing me further and further from a belief in god or religion, is people like you who believe you need to save or convert everyone to your way of thinking. I believe this to be one of the growing reasons why people DO NOT believe in a God. People are learning to think and feel for themselves, rather than be blindly led by dogma that does not make any sense on any level.
Stewart Gault 30+
Light- by working out the density of the sun and it's gravitational strength we've worked out that it takes 1 million years for light from the centre of the sun to reach the outside.
Staying on light, the distance between galaxies, calculated in light years, and given the speed of light, it takes billions of years for the light from the most distant galaxies to reach us.
Staying with galaxies, if you rewind the expansion of the universe and decelerate it at a constant rate you get a singularity forming 13.72 billion years ago.
Radiometric dating
Evolution
Fossils
Geological explanations for separation of Pangea, distribution of animals and occurrence of the same animals on completely different continents, geological reasons for how mountains are formed
Blackholes, supernovas,
Rock layers, k-t boundary
Ice cores Archaeology I could go on, and what do you have? O well there is an invisible god who we'll never see till we die and basically he cursed our race for wanting to have knowledge and so he gave us pain and then he flooded the world but dont worry he floated all animals on a boat which can't physically work or hold the amount of animals it required. But dont worry about that it's all a matter of faith.
What a pathetic and disgusting argument, honestly the aboriginal explanation is even more plausible that a giant snake slithered and created all the rivers, welcome to the 21st century Peter where the most educated humans on this planet would laugh the second someone mentioned young eart and know what's worse? The fact that the most educated theologians of Christianity accept evolution and old earth and the big bang. It's time to catch up Peter, and I don't care if Im sounding rude but we need to get rid of stupid beliefs, they are of no benefit to society and make you look like an idiot And threaten to drag the future generations into a regress of knowledge if religious fundamentalists had their way. I won't have it.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Stewart Gault 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
With a powerful deity nearly anything is possible to fit what we see, even if not the simplest explanation.
E.g. in regards to the time it takes light to reach us from other galaxies, some claim this is an illusion in that god must have created all the stars and galaxies closer together and then moved them far away so there was light on route from 6000 years ago,
If you want to believe you will usually find a way.
Stewart Gault 30+
to this I think we'd both answer no, and this is why I don't listen to any creationist evidence usually (and to back me up in case anyone thinks I plug my ears to creationist "evidence" I've just about heard and read it all so I assume any further "revelations will still be bogus) unless I fool myself into thinking they might once have got actual evidence then later realizing in the article it asserts god somewhere and I lose a little more faith in society. .
Gabo Moreno 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
- "cherry-picked and misrepresented "evidence" with self-delusion and dishonesty."
You just described yet anoter reason why all beliefs are false.
Sorry, but I couldn't resist. :P
Obey No1kinobe 50+
It's just that a compelling argument based on evidence may not work.
We may think we discredit a claim, but others don't. They change the story to fit the evidence and still fit their core beliefs.Like the X Files people want to believe. Their core fath based beliefs are the last thing to be given up.
It may be the same process we all use in regards to our core beliefs, it's just that some core beliefs are based on more reliable sources than others.
Amazing.
Colleen Steen 500+
That is probably the biggest underlying reason for my rejection of a god and religion. Throughout history, the manipulation has been, and continues to be apparent. If an individual chooses to limit him/herself in that way, fine. The practice, however, has adversly impacted many people in our world.
Edward Webber
There is a bit of a flaw in your question which I can't answer without correcting. People don't choose to _not_ believe in something. You cannot choose to not believe in computers. If there is enough evidence of computers existing, you believe in them existing. The threshold may be different between people, as some are less skeptical and scientific minded than others, but the beliefs themselves are not a choice.
That said, an atheist finds no compelling reason to believe in gods, the same way you find no compelling reason to believe in all of the others gods ever created but your favorite one (which you named 'God'). An atheist believes in gods the same way you believe in unicorns, the tooth fairy and leprechauns. There is simply no evidence in these things beyond a story in a book.
So, if you really wish to understand the mind of an atheist, recall why you do not believe in unicorns or mermaids, even though there are thousands of stories based on them, sculptures of them, drawings of them and even people who truly believe they exist, no matter how much you try and reason with them. Then you will realize atheists simply use the same standards for all other claims with no evidence, even if they wish one were true.
It is said, "Everyone is an atheist, some simply go one god further."
edward long 100+
More cut and paste of of my actual words:
". . . I can only assume you are being stubborn and evasive, which I cannot believe is true of you."
Please notice the words, "which I cannot believe is true of you." That is the absolute opposite of saying you are stubborn and evasive. Why have people chosen not to believe in God? Maybe because it affords greater freedom of interpretation and makes no demands of its followers to meet some concrete standard.
Colleen Steen 500+
Well.....That makes a lot of sense!!! What's the point in spending the time confusing yourself???
edward long 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
edward long 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
Is your statement true? Is there an example of a belief which is not an invention of Man? If faith is not allowed then the answer is no. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the essence of things not seen. In faith-based issues not all human beliefs are human constructs, so your statement is true for atheists but not true for those who live by faith. Why have people chosen not to believe in God? Mr. Lorenz asks. Maybe the answer is because they do not have faith. Thank you Mark!
Mark Meijer 100+
Also (in response to another comment of yours), what makes the King James bible authoritative? And how do you know it is the word of god? You said (in that other comment):
"Someone said," or "My experience is," is not a supportable claim
So who told you those things about that particular bible, and why are those supportable claims?
edward long 100+
Regarding the KJV. You asked which Bible I mean when I say the Holy Bible. I do not insist it is authoritative to anyone other than me. It is the "language" I speak and understand. This is a conclusion I reached after prolonged personal study of several versions.
Claims from the KJV are verifiable by reading the KJV. Whether one agrees with such claims or not they can be supported and verified.
Personal experience is subjective, arbitrary and heavily influenced by imagination, memory, and unknowable motives. Thank you Mark for those excellent questions. Be well. Edward
Mark Meijer 100+
That book has authority only because you gave it that, YOU reached that conclusion "after prolonged personal study". It's your own authority you're seeing reflected back at you, it's not of the book in itself (if it were, it would be authoritative for everyone). It's you who decided to invest your own authority into a book, to abdicate it in favor of an ostensibly external source. But that's impossible, since it's still by your own authority that you abdicate it.
Of course you don't owe me or anyone else an explanation. But if you're really interested in truth, then the only sensible thing to do is to be honest with yourself.
edward long 100+
I do not insist that the Holy Bible is "authoritative for everyone,", only for me. I have not given authority to the Holy Bible. Man has no congenital Authority. For example, an Atheist relies on the Holy Bible being false becauseif it is true then Atheism is the mark of a fool. The Atheist is not surrendering or repudiating (abdicating) his authority by rejecting the Bible, any more than I am by accepting it. The Atheist and I both make a decision about Theology. He says, "No such thing as the study of God because there is no God." I say "To know God study the Holy Bible." I base my belief on an actual (not "ostensibly") external source as evidence. The Atheist bases his beliefs on an absence of evidence. Epistomologically we are the same, but in practice one believes the Holy Bible is evidence for God and the other believes the absence of evidence for God is proof there is no God. My methods are no better than the Atheist's. But our conclusions are very different. The Atheist says, wrongly, absence of proof is proof of absence.
Thanks, Mark, for the reminder about honesty being essential in the pursuit of Truth. There is always a temptation to embrace false words. Socrates said, QUOTE: "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." Be well. --Edward
Mark Meijer 100+
Frankly I find it highly respectable. I have openly admitted my own hypocrisy on multiple occasions, including on this website, and I think acknowledging it is the first and necessary step to moving beyond it, insofar as that is even possible. Not everyone is willing or able to admit that they're full of it ;). So now that you have admitted to yours, the only question that remains is what are you going to do with it.
Well that's for you alone to answer, and it's not always easy. Wish you the best.
edward long 100+
Methods are the same but conclusions can be (and in this conversation are) different.
You make it look like i just renounced my faith in God. Very dramatic, but most unscientific.
If you choose "C" as the answer to a multiple choice question, and I choose "A", which of us made the better choice? Does it not depend on which answer is correct? If the question is: "Does God exist?", the answer choices are: A= Yes. B= No. C= Not enough information. You choose "B", I choose "A". When the grades are poosted after the Final Exam we will get the answer. Sorry I can't choose the same answer as you. Good luck on the test!
Mark Meijer 100+
It doesn't matter whether you chose answer A or B or C if the method by which you arrived at it is bogus. Even if one of the answers is correct, and that's an as yet unexamined and very big IF... even then, guessing correctly may get you to pass an exam, but it doesn't make you understand the truth.
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
I don't refuse you anything, but as all metaphors must, yours broke down at a crucial point. I'm not imposing anything, much less restrictions. Feel free to have your metaphors break down in ways that preclude them from supporting your position. No position can be supported anyway. I'm just the bad guy with the bad news. Or if you don't want me to be that guy, I'll stop. I thought I might be doing you a favor, but that's not for me to decide. No hard feelings.
I answered the question why I think people choose not to believe in god, here:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/12180/why_have_people_atheists_cho.html?c=488723
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
Linda Taylor 50+
But I am not sure these are singularly human constructs. And you are very right Ed. I do not have faith in a God. Can't get it, can't buy it on Amazon. Don't really miss it or want it either.
Mark Meijer 100+
"consider the fact that all human beliefs are human constructs, without exception."
So, all HUMAN beliefs are HUMAN constructs. I deliberately put that in there in the original, and now you can see why. We don't need to get into whatever beliefs may be held by animals or aliens or non-corporeal beings, or any beings other than humans. Because all that would accomplish is massive side-trackage ;).
edward long 100+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
edward long 100+
Linda Taylor 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
Linda clearly says..."I do not have faith in a God." You have misrepresented her statement, to try to mold it around YOUR beliefs...AGAIN! Based on Linda's comments on many threads regarding the kids she teaches and advocates for, my perception is that she has faith in them and the wonderful work that she does. I am open to correction Linda, if this is not true. Not open to any more preaching from you Edward.
"Faith: allegiance to duty or a person; loyalty; complete confidence; something that is believed with strong convictions; without doubt or question". Just because Linda does not have faith in your choice of gods, does not mean she does not have faith. You are preaching YOUR beliefs again Edward.
edward long 100+
Linda Taylor 50+
Colleen Steen 500+
Linda wrote..." I do not have faith in a God". That statement is pretty clear, and does not indicate that she has no faith in anything.
I have no intent to "make" your reply anything other than what it is Edward.
I did not "forbid" preaching Edward.
I wrote clearly..."I am open to correction Linda, if this is not true. Not open to any more preaching from you Edward".
If you honestly believe that you are not preaching your own personal beliefs on this thread, you might want to reflect on that a bit.
The topic question is: "Why have people (Atheists) Chosen not to believe in God?"
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
You ask..."And how has this most recent post of yours answered that topic question? I don't see it"
Edward, again the topic of this discussion is...
"Why have people (Atheists) Chosen not to believe in God?"
Linda expressed her reason for not having faith in a god, which, of course is on topic.
I simply pointed out that you were manipulating her words to fit your own agenda, and preaching.
Atheist...no faith in a god....get it?
Perhaps you have been so busy preaching about your god and advocating for "him" that you forgot what the topic is?
Mark Meijer 100+
@Edward, re: "You do see my point that for those who believe in the supernatural there are beliefs that are constructed by God and not by Man?"
No, because as is already evident from your own formulation, the belief that some beliefs are constructed by god, hinges on the belief in the supernatural, and you're using both beliefs to justify eachother. That means they are unsupported by anything other than themselves. The same goes for having a book grant its own authority. It's called circular reasoning. That's what beliefs do, they distort perception so as to affirm themselves. That's also why unchallenged beliefs tend to be invisible to the one who holds them.
@Obey, re: "are all beliefs equal or are some closer to the truth"
Close to true means not true. All beliefs are equal in that they are not true. Belief and truth (in the absolute sense, which is the only sense that makes sense :P), are mutually exclusive. Don't believe me, lest it become just another belief.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I suggest in practical terms not all claims are equal.
Also some things may be absolutely true, e.g. some mathematical equations.
Or there are 26 letters in the English alphabet.
On the topic at hand, a 13 billion year old universe versus a 6000 year old one is not a trivial difference and while either may not be exact one would be closer to the truth. Also if something is positioned as an estimate +/- rather than an absolute, then the claim my br more correct.
Does 1 + 1 = 2?
Is pure water H2O
I live in Australia
There was a car accident today
Mark Meijer 100+
Mathematical equations and alphabets are also human constructs. They are "true" because we said so. They are not true in any absolute sense, because they depend on this very specific, human, context in which they are deemed to exist. Mathematics is not the language of the universe, it is our language for describing the universe. And all it can do is provide a model of reality. All models are selective approximations, and none are reality itself.
13 billion vs. 6000 is a trivial difference if neither of them are true. You may think one is closer to the truth, but what truth is that? The beginning of the universe? Did the universe spring into existence without prior conditions being ripe? No, of course not, it sprang into existence BECAUSE conditions were ripe. So if there were preconditions before the start of the universe, was it really the start?
1 + 1 = 2 because we say it is. Maths is a tool, which man invented, for conceptually dividing up reality. Reality is indivisible. All division exists only conceptually, i.e. as beliefs. Besides, read "1984" by George Orwell. You might find one day that 2 + 2 = 5, and if you never knew any better, that would be your reality. As false as this one. No more true than 2 + 2 = 4.
Pure water is H2O because we defined them so.
You live on a continent that humans have named Australia. You don't live in it, but on it. You don't live in the society or state with that name, you live among people that make it up.
And even that is not true. There is no continent, because there are no real divisions. The continent does not stop at the shore line, it is the whole planet. And the planet does not stop at the atmosphere. Well, it does according to our definitions, but those are our own inventions again. Just more superimposed divisions.
Now you can do the car accident as an exercise ;).
edward long 100+
Why do you think people choose to not believe in God?
Mark Meijer 100+
And remember what I said in the other conversation? Reality can't be flawed, or it wouldn't be reality? I'm just throwing that out here again because I don't want the impression to arise, for anyone, that I consider anything superior to anything else, except with specific reference to a context. I'm not speaking in terms of offense.
In the context of finding out what is true, looking to support beliefs is counterproductive. Look to poke holes in all of them, and see if there are any among them that are impervious. That's how you find out what survives honest scrutiny. Looking to support beliefs you already have can only ever serve to reinforce them, not validate them.
Which brings us to why I think people (do or don't) believe in god. In my first comment way below I already argued that it is never a choice (see the link at the bottom of this comment). And actually there is no "why" to it or to anything else. Why does anything happen? It seems to follow certain patterns. Why does it seem to follow certain patterns? It just does. People believe in god when that's the lense through which they seek to reaffirm their world view. People do not believe in god when that is not the lense through which they seek to reaffirm their world view.
Note that lense and world view is the same thing. Beliefs are self-reaffirming. People use whatever lense they have to reaffirm that same lense. It doesn't matter if it specifically includes god or specifically excludes god. Very few people seek to even kick the tires on their world view, much less challenge the convention of having one.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/12180/why_have_people_atheists_cho.html?c=487215
Obey No1kinobe 50+
These sorts of rabbit holes are useful up to a point, until the mundane world impacts my perhaps illusory existence.
There are some things we can not be certain of, but many are close enough for many purposes.
Do you believe your mind exists? Into solipsism? Or is this some form of epistemology? Post modernism?
Scepticism, questioning is useful, but I guess if you paralysed in question everything mode you may eventually die of dehydration wondering if you are really thirsty. That is if you actually exist.
Not sure we need to aim for absolute truth or understanding to get by in a practical sense. I can calculate an approximation of gravitational force between 2 bodies of imprecise mass, I can read about the gravitational force carriers, but struggle to comprehend how gravity works, If we are evolved apes, then our minds developed around our senses and the nature of reality will be through the lens of our senses and whatever constructs we have to understand the world I guess.
I wonder if a dog perceives the world very differently to us. Maybe smell and hearing fill awareness more than for us.
Its not quite the same thing but I sometimes think about my body made of atoms, try and visualise atoms. What am i. These atoms came from food and water etc. Then I have cook dinner.
If you have a definition and something meets that definition, that's a useful tool in the minds arsenal. I guess our world view/perception model had some evolutionary benefits, yet we are very susceptible to cognitive bias etc
Interesting perspective.
What's your take on when someone moves from say believing in a god to not believing. Would you consider that some sort of collapse of one world view and building up another. A transition period?
Mark Meijer 100+
- "I might just stick with practical reality and not jump off a cliff because i can not be absolutely certain the collision at the end will kill me."
I totally agree. Nor can you be absolutely certain there will be a collision. There's only one way to find out. But nobody can tell you that you have to jump. Well, they can say the words. But the more sensible thing would certainly be not to jump, and stick with practical reality instead. Although that still leaves the question of just what makes for practical reality ;).
- "There are some things we can not be certain of, but many are close enough for many purposes."
I totally agree. So it all depends on what you consider to be your purposes. Each defines their own whether they know it or not.
Mark Meijer 100+
- "Do you believe your mind exists? Into solipsism? Or is this some form of epistemology? Post modernism?"
I look into all sorts of things. But not to find answers anymore, only to find questions. As I've mentioned, unchallenged beliefs tend to be invisible to the one holding them. Looking into various material is one way of making them visible. I look into stuff to try it on for size. I go at it with the intention of taking it down, and see if I can do it.
I already know by now that everything can be taken down, no theory or phenomenon is immune, because they all still hinge on context and all context is ultimately arbitrary. Well, there are other ways of expressing the reason "why" nothing is immune, but this one is as good as any other. The conclusion is there to be reached, because it's true, and this is just one way of reaching it.
Some belief operates in me yet, even though I understand conceptually that it is false. But all their days are numbered. I did jump off that cliff, although I didn't know it at the time. I don't suppose anyone ever does. Anyway, some of what I say may bear some resemblance to a whole plethora of "-isms". Truth is afterall everywhere. But this also means that the moment you try to wall it off, you've created a lie. In this sense, all "-isms" are lies. Which is another way of reaching the aforementioned conclusion.
I don't sign up for any package deal. Which is to say i don't "adhere" to any theory. Adherence is the stuff beliefs are made of. I don't follow any philosophy. I'm not a follower and not a philosopher. In the context of finding out what is true, philosophy is only a means to an end, to be discarded upon arrival, and the only reason to look at any of it is to see if it can be taken apart.
Deconstruction is the name of the game. You can reconstruct later if you want, without being fooled by the result anymore. Once you've seen through the magician's tricks, they can no longer baffle you.
Mark Meijer 100+
- "Scepticism is useful, but I guess if you get stuck in questioning everything mode you may eventually die of dehydration wondering if you are really thirsty. I guess you can admit to be certain of little, but find a way to function in the world. Or just as a useful exercise to look at things differently. Question etc."
This is not necessarily mutually exclusive with functioning in the world, though. Although when you're in freefall, the world certainly looks different. But you can take things on a practical level without believing them in any ultimate sense. Although some fairly normal things may become somewhat distasteful. But I don't need to believe in my own existence in order to drink when thirsty :P. Who is it that jumped off that cliff anyway.
But yes, it can be simply a useful exercise to look at things differently, which may also help you find out what practical reality means for you. The problem of course starts when people declare and pronounce without having questioned. Then again, that's only a problem from a certain frame of reference ;). As Rory Sutherland said on TED, perspective is everything. Which is yet another way of saying it's all false.
- "Its not quite the same thing but I sometimes think about my body made of atoms, try and visualise atoms. What am i. These atoms came from food and water etc. Then I have cook dinner."
Yes, it's the same thing, exactly the same thing. If there is one question to remember, it is "what am I" (or "who am I", or "what is me", or "what is this", you get the idea). And if there is one method of moving towards the answer (or rather towards destroying the question), it is discerning observation, honest scrutiny, in the broadest possible sense. You've made a potentially interesting observation indeed. And of course it can always be taken further. Just not by conceptual proliferation.
Mark Meijer 100+
- "What's your take on when someone moves from say believing in a god to not believing. Would you consider that some sort of collapse of one world view and building up another. A transition period?"
I don't know. Such a description is not sufficient to say what actually happened, or the circumstances in which it happened, or the course it took subsequently, etc. Who can ever really know.
It could be like you suggest, a collapse followed by a frantic, reflexive reconstruction of something that does not collapse under the same conditions (but which might yet collapse later when new pressures make themselves known, if they ever do).
Or it could be a simple polishing up of the existing world view, without ever looking at it too closely. That's not much of a difference though, it's just a matter of degree.
Or it could be something else :P.
Everything is a transition period. The only thing that makes it seem otherwise, is unchanging world views ;).
In a manner of speaking. But all speech is just a manner of speaking. Nothing is to be taken literally. Words can not cover the absolute, because they are themselves relative to some (hopefully) common frame of reference. They are necessarily metaphorical. It's all just convention.
Mark Meijer 100+
Re: "our minds developed around our senses and the nature of reality will be through the lens of our senses and whatever constructs we have to understand the world I guess."
Oof, you are on a roll my friend. I waited a while to reread your post until you were finished editing it, and now I see that little gem. Yes, the mind developed around the senses. All thought is derived from sensory experience. Even what we call abstract thought (actually all thought is abstract), when you start looking at the actual thoughts that you associate with abstractions, you'll see rather concrete-seeming stuff popping up.
So if the mind developed around the senses, and (get ready for this) the senses can only lie (find out how so)... then what does that tell us about the way we conceive of reality, not to mention the only way we can possibly conceive of it? We (as seeming individuals) can't actually escape the illusion, because all we have is the senses and the mind. But it can be known for what it is by eliminating what it isn't.
So it's an illusion chasing an illusion, but then again that's all you have to work with. There are no actual paradoxes, only tricks of perception. Seeming paradoxes occur only between different frames of reference, and only seem paradoxical when each frame of reference is simultaneously taken to be absolute.
I'm rambling.
Relatively speaking :P
Mark Meijer 100+
It's not only about the dominance of different senses, but the conceptual framework that filters it and uses it to construct the world as you perceive it. Beliefs are the filters. That's yet another reason why all beliefs are false. They distort the mental construction according to themselves. Who needs that? Dogs presumably have relatively few such filters, if any. Like babies. When you pay attention to it, it becomes evident in their entire behaviour and demeanor.
Humans tend to have an overabundance of filters. That's why conceptual proliferation will not get you out of that mess, it only adds filter on top of filter. People talk about altered states of consciousness, well that's what this is already. Those filters are what alter it. Any state of consciousness is still distorted. The only use of what is commonly called altered states of consciousness, is to contrast them against our more commonly accepted state of consciousness, which is another way of making unexamined beliefs visible. It's always only by contrast.
Of course if you don't know that, then altered states of consciousness only serve to create ever more outlandish belief structures. No more or less valid than the ones we're used to. Some people call that enlightenment, but it's obviously not.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If absolute reality even makes sense as a concept, humans are not really capable of determining what it is. This certainly doesn’t stop the claims.
I guess we evolved with the belief world view mind/brain system. Most of us seem pretty attached to our world views and opinions. This may be in part related to social standing. But I guess if our world views were too flexible it might have impacted our survival.
On the social standing issue, people may be more open to new ideas when in private reflection mode rather than public debate mode. We all probably have periods in our life when we are more reflective and open and other that are not. Also, some have more time and safety for reflection than others. Some may not even be aware or value reflection. It may be uncomfortable.
Labelling or making intuitive assumptions may be related to this. Part of our pattern seeking or pigeon holing mind to concentrate the infinite information into discrete but imprecise packets. You look dangerous. You are not of my tribe. Atheists are all xyz. Useful at times e.g. if someone says they are an atheist I can reasonably infer one thing if we share the same definition. But with some tradeoffs given a person is much more than a label and the label may only partially fit.
What am I, perhaps followed by who do I want to be, what sort of person, what sort of life do I want to lead etc (in a practical sense).
Agree words (and our senses) are limited and imprecise, but important to the human experience. Still they are what we have.
The final transition awaits us all. Not surprised we have ways to avoid being overwhelmed by the inevitable end. I doubt an ant knows it will die in the sense humans do.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
A dog may perceive and interpret reality differently. Similar eyes, but cars maybe "dangerous moving things", human owner "pack leader" or however the presumably language free concepts are packaged and labelled in a dogs brain.
I wonder if many of our complex mental constructs or filters are in some way tied to the basic evolutionary mammalian and primal machinery. Atheist = threat. My pack. Pack leader. This will help me reproduce.
Agree re psycho active substances. I heard someone once say an LSD trip proved to them there was a god and we are all one. I use this point to reinforce my beliefs about perception, delusion, materialistic brain processes, subjectivity etc (Which demonstrates one of your initial points how our beliefs are part of the filtering and interpretation process). Some aspects of religious and spiritual experience may utilise these tendencies in a less extreme manner. Trance like music, community expectations, dissociative experience etc.
Interesting that many aspects of religious/supernatural belief systems have some parallels in a non religious/non supernaturalist world views. While I don't suggest claiming there is a sky Father god is completely equivalent or equally justified to not believing based on a lack of any evidence we might agree on, I guess information, belief mechanisms, and a lack of absolute certainty applies across the board
Also, given reasonably agreed observations, many explanations can be created to explain these. These explanations may reflect existing beliefs. Assuming an all powerful all knowing being (which is overstating the case I suggest) nearly everything we find can be twisted or interpreted to fit that world view
edward long 100+
In context the comment was presented as an example of a contradiction in Christian doctrine. The merit of any such claim depends upon it being supportable with direct reference to the controlling media of the accused. For Christianity that medium is the Holy Bible. Many falsehoods are perpetrated by enemies and sometimes even by friends of Christianity. Conflict is easily resolved by citing what the Bble states on the subject. "Someone said," or "My experience is," is not a supportable claim because it does not refer to the controlling authority. Such wild, unsubstantiated accusations can be made against Atheism because there is no controlling authority, but it is not so with Christianity. The Holy Bible is the Word of God embraced by every Born Again person. To disprove all, or part of, Christianity one can only disprove the Holy Bible.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
edward long 100+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I won't get into the usual arguments about the arbitrary compilation, unverifiable or questionable claims, and internal inconsistencies, but suggest that translation from Greek and Hebrew or any language is somewhat subjective. Also interpretation of any text, even by the well meaning can differ.
Text may always be a susceptible to subjectivity and problematic in conveying complex and contextual meaning. But agree it is better to have a written reference point to come back to rather than not have one.
I actually think the Koran is better example of managing revelation by text.
Colleen Steen 500+
Since I do not use any holy book for a life guide, it doesn't matter which one is referenced. I speak only from my heart, based on research I have done and my own experiences, having an open mind while doing so.
AGAIN...the topic question is..."Why have people (Atheists) Chosen not to believe in God? Does this give freedom to live life without becoming answerable to". I know you know this Obey, and perhaps there are some folks who need reminding.
My comment was not "wild" Edward, it simply did not agree with what you believe.
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
When I read bible or koran, the stories are often bizarre. They sound like oral traditions written down much later after the event. Or tribal myths. Things like a prophet cursing some kids for calling him baldy and then god sends bears to rip into the kids. Not what I would expect from the creator of the universe..
So for me I don't find much in old religious texts leading me to believe and much that points me the other way.
There doesn't seem to be any reliable way to learn about which god interpretation is correct.
Still everyone is welcome to believe what they want.
Teja Tanchangya
It is true that we come from diverse cultural, religious, and educational backgrounds which can result in what one may call "civilization of clashes" rather than "clash of civilizations." But it only requires careful reflection and understanding that the stranger i meet on the street is also perceiving me in his/her ways just as I'm perceiving him/her in my own ways. If there would be anyone responsible for any clash, it would be two of us. Because we had the freedom to perceive the otherwise, to change our minds.
Also, mind is the forerunner of our actions. If we see ourselves as cognitive human beings, as open to endless impingement of sensory data, we can "see" how seeing someone, for instance, we generate feelings such as love, fear, etc. There is a complex psychological process involved in it. We just need to be able to observe it or, to use meditation terms, to be mindful or to be aware of our physical and mental activities. This is hard at first, but when we understand the nature of our own mind, it gives us inner peace. When we have peace within, there is is peace without. When we have peace within, we also have true happiness, and that happiness liberates us from fear. Questions of existence and non-existence do not seem to matter. We have a life, we live happily by helping others also to be happy.
I don't know if it is matter of 'right" not to believe in God, but the way I see the world as interactive and being interdependently weaved by our actions and perceptions do not require a God. We answer to ourselves and to each other.
Frans Kellner 100+
Very well put and from this trust replaces fear.
Be happy, always!
Teja Tanchangya
You also be happy!
Colleen Steen 500+
This issue can be resolved with understanding, respect, acceptance and a genuine intent and effort to have compassion/empathy for one another. All of these qualities are embraced with unconditional love. One does not have to be a theist, or atheist to be unconditionally loving. It is a choice we can make in any moment of the life experience. It requires, as you insightfully say..."careful reflection". If one needs to get "stuck" with his/her individual beliefs to the point of not reflecting, it is not as useful as having an open heart and mind to all people. We ALWAYS have the choice to accept each other....or not.
I totally agree..."When we have peace within, there is peace without. When we have peace within, we also have true happiness, and that happiness liberates us from fear. Questions of existence and non-existence do not seem to matter. We have a life, we live happily by helping others also to be happy.
I don't know if it is matter of 'right" not to believe in God, but the way I see the world as interactive and being interdependently weaved by our actions and perceptions do not require a God. We answer to ourselves and to each other".
SO beautifully expressed Teja!!!
Teja Tanchangya
It's good to read that you also think almost the same way. When such thinking becomes evidently mutual there probably also comes, to borrow your words, "understanding, respect, acceptance and a genuine intent and effort to have compassion/empathy for one another."
It's also good to have feedback, for that allows us to evaluate our own patterns of thinking and to reshape them in a desirable way.
Thanks a lot once again!
Colleen Steen 500+
It is indeed good to have feedback, and to put some feedback into action would be helpful, if churches have an intention to really work for the good of all people. Those who are controlling people with dogma that is not useful to our global societies, seriously need to listen, evaluate patterns, and reshape them in a desirable way.
Thanks again to you as well...good to connect:>)
Ryan Alexander
I feel like theological debates are a waste of time. Neither side is going to concede. The person of reason or the person of faith. I love religion. I wish very deeply that I could sit there and be like "Yeah, this makes total sense" but I would be fooling myself. I read religious texts because as Obey said men that were thinking about humanity and what they felt was best for it may have created these religions and therefore, they are important to understand! They were philosophers in a sense.
It does give me freedom not to bow to a higher power because I'm able to think freely and rationally. I have really great friends who are very religious. They are some of the most wonderful people to be around but they HATE gay people and want to see abortions made illegal, based solely on the fact that "there god says so."
Am I a good person? I believe so. Do I live a life that is wholesome? I sure as hell try
Do I answer to anyone? Society, humanity and my sovereign state.
Marshal Tucker
I really like your response to lorenz question it reminds me of a quote by Bertrand Russell - "To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom". Most people hide behind a fear of questioning their beliefs, they're told (have faith and do not question God) - the fear is that if you question God then you do not have faith and now risk eternity in hell. To conquer this fear is the first step towards knowledge, even if you do decide to still believe in a god. Because at least now you have some sort of reason to your beliefs. One more quote I like that I think fits here is by Thomas Jefferson - "Question with boldness even the existence of God, because if there be one, he most more approve the homage of reason then that of blindfolded fear".
Frans Kellner 100+
Information still is out of reach for most people so it will take some time before reason conquers fear on a global scale. Yet, those that dare are heroes for the sake of truth.
Mark Meijer 100+
http://i.imgur.com/jNipL.jpg
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
natasha nikulina 50+
It's funny, really, reading your posts I had the uncanny sense of deja vu, I have been there before, " I know the room, I walked this floor " :)
" The true reality of which the one we experience is a shadow."
It's old age Plato Forms, is it not ? Plus a lot of stuff I have in my head too.So I am on board with this vision.
But...
Correct me if I am wrong, you think that we have no access to truth, just the knowing that it is not possible to know it is the only truth we have .
You can define Truth as opposite to False, but it leaves you empty and confused. I have the feeling that Truth can't be known but can be experienced, momentarily, like a gift.
Maybe it sounds corny, sorry for that. Quantum match : you are not in the process you are process. Mystic metaphor : The knower is the known, the seer is the seen.
I believe it, because it is reinforced with my own experience. Truth is not only undivided within itself, it is not separated from Love and Beauty. Am I preaching ?:) You know, the words are so overabused, we'd better play jazz , verbalizing is tough. :)
I am in favour of holographic image, it makes quantum entanglement a real feature of the universe and proves that we are not totally separated from truth, though what you said about " phenomenal world" is also true. .Mandelbrot set makes our umbilical cord with the Truth almost palpable. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ma6cV6fw24&feature=related
Biblical truth : " so above as below " You know what ' aha moment ' is, it can be a glimpse of truth for that very moment, reasonable explanation are later comers. The mind is just a bridge between shapeless and form. Form is never true for nothing has absolute meaning without a whole, it's knowing about not knowing. Again wave/particle duality explains a lot, you can find a verbal match : " Who speaks doesn't know , who knows doesn't speak''
natasha nikulina 50+
And "being in the moment' is a great 'thing' it allows experiencing truth without attachment to imaginary/ false separated self. Eckhart Tolle tries to make it a practical tool, not an elite practice of the few, and i think he is doing a great job.
OK, I think I have a lot of opinions today, sorry.
It's my luck i have no time to continue.:)
Have a nice day !
Frans Kellner 100+
Quote: "I have the feeling that Truth can't be known but can be experienced."
Exactly, and to convey it you need to break the thing in peaces and then there's nothing left to tell.
The moment time breaks in you're out of the experience. To know is to remember but we can only share with those who know.
natasha nikulina 50+
What can i say ?
"... and to convey it you need to break the thing in pieces and then there's nothing left to tell."
Bingo ! :)
I am glad you are back !
Mark Meijer 100+
Eckhart Tolle may give you glimpses, but you will be interpreting that according to your existing belief structure. The point of truth, if there is one, is not to get glimpses without knowing what it means and without addressing untruth. You can't get to the truth if you're still looking at it through a lense made of lies without knowing there even is a lense. We're already doing that all the time ;). You can't get there by osmosis. Wrong knowing can only be remedied by right knowing, which basically amounts to unknowing. But you have to understand why that is. Just dumbing down and stigmatizing thoughts will not get you there.
There is nothing elitist about it, nothing is preventing anyone from doing it, but the fact remains for whatever reason that most don't, nor would they want to. And why should they want to if they are living the life they do want? The only way to get it "to the masses" is by turning it into something it's not.
natasha nikulina 50+
Maybe i am wrong, but there is nothing abstract in Plato ideal forms , they stands for 'isness' of observable forms, there is nothing external , everything is here, but we need something more subtle than biological eyes to see it.
".. it's just that the world isn't the way we experience it "
You preach the converted :).
Though it depends what you mean by 'experience ', it's like consciousness, nobody knows what it is , but who can deny different levels of consciousness ? Flower is conscious where the sun is, we can be conscious of a lot of things or the most advanced can be conscious of no things, of 'no thing, 'nothing'. At the point of 'nothing' experience and consciousness is the same ' thing' . OK, it's just an idea, that came to me right now, while printing. God forbid, i don't insist :)
And there is a point here : "The only way to get it "to the masses" is by turning it into something it's not. "
Generally it's true, maybe it's always true , i don't know. And I don't practice it, I can't go 'in the moment ' at will, maybe i am too cerebral for this, though I think i am not. Actually, I don't practice anything but life, it can give you spontaneous openings, but it's another story :)
Thanks for the conversation !
Mark Meijer 100+
Cultivating presence, or cultivating anything else, can be extremely worthwhile when trying to improve the illusion one lives in. But if you want to find out what is true, you might do better to find out what it is that seemingly keeps pulling you out of the present, and why. You'll find false beliefs (and attachment to them) at the root every time, and fear at the root of those.
That's what Tolle means with the conditioned mind. Attachment to belief is conditioned. Heck, everything is conditioned, the entire illusion and everything in it is conditioned. There's no way around that. But what conditions attachment to belief is fear. And that's what seemingly keeps you out of the present. Get to the fear, go into it, see its senseless futility, and watch it dissipate.
But being cerebral is still a perfect expression of truth, and you don't need to cultivate your way out of it in order to see that. Although of course you may need to find a workable balance as part of the process, which is certainly a challenge for me as well ;). But you wouldn't want to get rid of your faculty of discernment.
All the best.
natasha nikulina 50+
Yes, cultivating ... whatever is cultivated may lead to opposite direction, I guess it's an inner dynamics of any process. Still I am in favour of two-opposites-making-the-whole picture.:) If it is totally irrelevant, what is the balance ?
Everything is conditioned ? Yes, it's a human condition, it's tough, but I like it. Actually i don't have a choice, it's a kind of freedom :)
I think, being in the moment or meditation doesn't obliterate consciousness but highlights it. The thinking, reasoning is secondary in understanding things or 'knowledge' , they are the tool , not the guide.
The whole is prior to a part , seeing, experiencing the whole or I don't know what, I don't have a name for it, you start to find matches everywhere and they are everywhere in different contexts , seemingly not related , but you start to see the bigger picture and , yes it is a 'cerebral' joy ! Faculty of discernment alone makes one just a walking collection of other people's thoughts, maybe wise, but dead.
I've just have seen the video you posted. Yes , I think it's the way it is. I came up with this picture some time ago. In plain language : there is nothing really exists but relationships. I am vigilante, not to let it turn into a strong belief, but no input has shaken it so far. :)
But Alan Watts' story is incomplete, and not quite accurate. It is not the way people become atheist and there is a gap at the very beginning of the story, that's why it sounds as something new . People not always felt isolated or aliens.Take the average medieval man , he didn't question the priority of the Whole he was a part of. The change in perception started somewhere 4, 5 hundreds years ago, with scientific advances, I guess.It is not science which is to blame, but the attitudes it generated.
natasha nikulina 50+
The part gained a kind of independent existence, the doctrine of objectivity got the status of Divinity, a part was studied in isolation from the whole, a man became a machine, assembled from different parts and so it began...And here we are with the urgent necessity to come back to the whole. And science with its quantum revelations is an agent that can give us a new understanding of eternal truths: what comes as one goes out as many and remains one. Nothing has independent existence from everything else. What for us is quantum entanglement or Torsion field , for tribal shaman was simply magic.
I am reminded of a T.S Eliot verse :
...and the end of all our exploring
will be to arrive where we started
and know the place for the first time.
But we are not going round on circles, maybe it's a spiral motion, what we have always known, now we have.So there is an advantage in the crises we are in, actually, we are not in crises, we are crises.
It's a long talk, everything is not simply connected, everything is just one story, and there is nothing off topic in any topic.
But it's pretty late here... please don't take me wrong, i don't state anything, though it may look like a statement, but it is not :)
Thanks !
Mark Meijer 100+
- "Thanks for your response, I appreciate such conversations, it's a dialogue a kind of attempt to think together on line :)"
Thanks, I agree, this is also for my own benefit. This kind of thing also helps me to get my own bullshit straight sothat I can finally pack it up and toss it out the window :P. It's part of my "spiritual practice" (although the word spiritual is even more abused beyond recognition than the word god). So thank you for the opportunity and the feedback.
- "whatever is cultivated may lead to opposite direction"
It simply depends on what direction you want to go. Nothing wrong with cultivating anything, again I think it can be extremely worthwhile. But if truth exists and untruth doesn't, no amount of cultivation will change that.
- "Still I am in favour of two-opposites-making-the-whole picture.:) If it is totally irrelevant, what is the balance ?"
Yes, two seeming opposites are actually an indivisible whole. It's certainly not irrelevant, but opposites are only seeming opposites, as part of the illusion, at its very core. They ARE the illusion, that's what duality means.
Truth and untruth are not like that, because untruth does not exist and truth is not a thing, it is nondual. Of course we're speaking about it now, turning truth and untruth into concepts, and so it may seem as though they're just like any other pair of similarly related concepts. But that only happens as a result of trying to communicate about it. Communication about it is not it, it occurs within it.
- "Everything is conditioned ? Yes, it's a human condition, it's tough, but I like it. Actually i don't have a choice, it's a kind of freedom :)"
Yes :)
Mark Meijer 100+
- "I think, being in the moment or meditation doesn't obliterate consciousness but highlights it. The thinking, reasoning is secondary in understanding things or 'knowledge' , it's a tool , not the guide."
I agree. It's all just a tool, both meditation and reason. Any tool can point towards consciousness or away from it (seemingly), depending on their usage. The thing is simply that so many people don't even really know what they actually want from a tool, and don't know how to apply it. Neither meditation nor reason are easy competences.
- "Faculty of discernment alone makes one just a walking collection of other people's thoughts, maybe wise, but dead."
Right, thoughts are dead and not your own. But your faculty of discernment is what enables you to see that. I'm not talking about verbal thinking, I'm talking about seeing. Seeing is alive, not dead.
- "there is nothing really exists but relationships"
Right, but when you think about it, that's just a clumsy way of saying that there is no true division. Only when we come up with the idea of separated things, do we need to come up with the idea of relationships between them, in order to connect them and make sense of having invented the idea of things. But they were never really separate, that is just an artifact of perception.
So, if we think things exist as such, then we think relationships exist as such, and actually things themselves consist entirely of relationships (because the boundaries we draw to define things and their parts are ultimately arbitrary). But things never really existed as things, that was just a mistaken idea, and so we no longer need the idea of relationships to connect them. There was never anything to connect, because there was never any true division.
That's what it means to love your neighbour as yourself. Your neighbour IS yourself. (I thought you had that in your comment, did you edit it out?)
Mark Meijer 100+
- "But Alan Watts' story is incomplete, and not quite accurate."
All anyone can do is tell a story, and all stories are incomplete and inaccurate. That's yet another reason why no belief is true. Given the way Alan Watts tells his stories, often so simplified that they are obviously only meant to illustrate a point, and never to be taken at face value, I'm fairly sure that he knew he was lieing his ass off ;).
What he often liked to do was just to tell a story in such a way that it served to highlight our own unchallenged stories by way of contrast. It's always always always only contrast that makes anything visible. The point of his stories was not to believe them, but to evaluate your own. It's just another finger pointing at the moon, and all fingers are crooked.
- "It's a long talk, everything is not simply connected, everything is just one story, and there is nothing off topic in any topic."
I agree, there is never any true division... But TED might disagree :P. But as Alan Watts would say, we're all rascals anyway. Woohoo!
- "please don't take me wrong, i don't state anything, though it may look like a statement, but it is not :)"
I understand. It's the same for me. :) We're all just talking to ourselves anyway, in this online interthinking.
Thank you! And good night :)
(and sorry Edward, for all the email notifications you're getting when I reply to Natasha... hope you're enjoying it too though)
natasha nikulina 50+
I'm afraid ' thinking on line together ' doesn't work, alas, in a way it shouldn't . We can't think together without silence ,which is understood, and spontaneity of immediate responses. Still it's an exchange of opinions, I would not call it ' throwing mental bullshit out the window ' though, at least it was not my intention :) Anyway thanks for the attempt., I appreciate it . At least, we were not debating !
I find debates totally useless, they generate a lot of heat and no light. I tried to balance this 'debate' thing with a new genre :)
And talking about balance, could i ask you to ponder this zen koan :
Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"
Any thoughts ?
Have a nice day !
Mark Meijer 100+
Cheers
Frans Kellner 100+
People that stop believing choose to know or not know and live a quest for real answers.
As long as you believe you will never know and follow where ever they lead you. Like a parrot you repeat the things they tell you, so to question your believe is the first step towards knowledge.
Knowledge will bring freedom which brings appreciation and responsibility. You will no longer care for others out of fear for punishment but you will care because you understand the oneness of life and the interdependence of everything living. Knowledge raises all the good things because it comes from love instead of fear.
Mark Meijer 100+
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Mark Meijer 100+
- A belief is a lens that distorts experience in order to affirm itself in a positive feedback loop, regardless of whether it is "true" or not.
- To believe something means to want something to be true, or to want the security of knowing something while you actually don't. Believing and knowing are mutually exclusive. Belief represents unwarranted attachment, and facilitates ego continuity when taken at face value.
- Beliefs enter the mind as the result of "outside circumstances" / "causal processes", they are not "arrived at" by "you" who ostensibly controls and owns them. They are not yours, and they are dead, stale.
- At best, beliefs are highly selective and inaccurate representations of "what is" (as "it" is perceived through the senses or inference, which is already selective and inaccurate). They always depend on other unchallenged, and usually invisible, assumptions about reality.
- Thoughts are themselves symbols, signs, supposedly representing something in the real world, and all representation is meaningless without interpretation and association (thoughts result from unconscious processes of interpretation). Interpretation is always ambiguous and relative to a context or conceptual framework. Truth is not. A thought about something is never the thing itself.
- All thought is abstract and implies divisions and boundaries. Symbols are arbitrary and repeatable, reality is not. As Alan Watts puts it, "a thing is really a think," i.e. a way of carving up the world in order to get a handle on it. A thing is a unit of thought like an inch is a unit of length.
- A thought as a thought is as empty as any other "thing", it does not exist inherently as such. Rather it depends on the coming together of causes and conditions, on the basis of designation, and on being imputed as a thought/thing by a cognizing consciousness.
edward long 100+
Gabo Moreno 100+
I think Mark is going for a solipsist point.
Mark Meijer 100+
I could go in depth and provide arguments and all that, but firstly I would be going horribly off-topic, and secondly it makes no difference anyway until you are yourself willing to honestly scrutinize your own beliefs. I've said all I need to in my previous comments. But beware the consequences. Edward professed an interest in truth. But one may find their world incinerating before their eyes. I'm not joking, only do it if you find truth more important than comfort. This is not a challenge, but a fair warning.
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
Hey let's scrutinize the belief of solipsism: It states that the only thing I can know is that I exist, right? But does it state what is meant by "me"? Seems like a crucial part of it. "Me" as opposed to whom, if nobody else exists? Already solipsism is incoherent. At best it could say that there is existence. But there is no "me" to it at all, because "me" could only exist in relation to something which exists as "not me".
*poof*
Mark Meijer 100+
natasha nikulina 50+
Let's use caps lock in writing 'me' or 'self, ME, SELF is me/self in quantum superposition. The pattern ' me VS not me' makes itself redundant.
There is no 'other human/mind that is not me, it's all me thinking the same thought differently. In this case ME is always true and me is always untrue.
Does it make any sense ? :)
John Dunbar 10+
An interesting question : If 2 identical twins were separately placed in a controlled, exactly similar environment, would they emerge to be the same exact person?
Mark Meijer 100+
And now for some false pretenses of my own ;)... to get it back on topic, this is why I don't believe in god as a personified creator (apart from the fact that no belief is true): Creator and creation could never be separate, and personifying anything (even persons) is always redundant and only ever meaningful in the relative (which incidentally implies that personifying oneself is no more meaningful than personifying, say, a hurricane).
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
natasha nikulina 50+
" that line of thought seems to bring you in endless circles"
No it doesn't , the motion is spiral and this way of thinking brings more clarity to the mind than linear logic, you seem to practice.
". Ive never heard anybody who recalled an experience of cosmic consciousness "
As a model :Jesus, Buddha.. they were real. And there were/are a lot of individuals who can experience the state of extended consciousness.
Actually all great geniuses in recorded human history experienced that kind of state , it inspires scientific and artistic insight, it gives the sense of intuitive certainty that usually accompanies deep insight and described as the state of 'all-at-onceness'.
Are you real ? Of course you are, and 'you' are unreal also .
What makes you 'you' ?
Try to feel comfortable squeezed between two opposites 'yes' and 'no', in a tiny space in between you'll find something infinitely large, you may call it truth.
If you manage, QM will be for you to grasp :)
It's what i seem to' know', it doesn't mean that it is true :)
Cheers !
Edward, sorry to disturb you , but you are the only proud possessor of the reply button in the whole wold :)
natasha nikulina 50+
" No need to invoke quantum anything."
It's true for you, for me ' quantum something ' makes things clearer. 'The way 'is not the matter of choice even, simply it goes this or that way. Does 'way' make any difference if can easily find this :
"And what is thought of as "me" and "not me" were never really separate patterns anyway, that's why they are redundant."
in my own mind ? :)
And this:" Creator and creation could never be separate"
Exactly because of that I don't believe in Holy Other Deity, whatever the name... For me God is real, but not directly observable force carrier of the observable forces. Our ancestors chose to call it God, so be it. Again , you may say , that there is no need to invoke Holy Doctrine, - maybe, but I find a lot of ' matches' there too.
And talking about beliefs, maybe we don't have anything but beliefs. What we think we know, is our coherent belief system, individual or collective; scientific or religious.
The left cerebral hemisphere is largely responsible for creating belief systems in order to maintain a sense of 'understaning'. New experiences get folded into the pre-existing belief system. When they don't fit, they are simply denied. The right hemisphere ( the intuitive part ) is constantly challenging the status quo. When the discrepancies become too large, it forces a revision of the 'picture'. However, when our beliefs are too strong, the right hemisphere may not succeed.
So it is not that important how right/wrong our beliefs/disbeliefs are but how strong they are and how emotionally we are attached to them , we'd better hold them lightly and be ready to let them go.
Hope you don't believe me, I am not sure i believe myself :)
Mark Meijer 100+
I can see the argument that there might be something (or everything) which you like to call god because you suppose that's how it was originally intended. But like you said, the difference is in how strong the attachment is. I see no sense in using the word god for anything when it predictably draws on so many attachments on the part of readers. That's why I said "god as a personified creator". And of course any insistence on my part (or yours) to use a particular word, indicates the same attachment in me (or you). There is no other reason to insist on the word god or any other.
Interesting by the way, that you say people adjust their beliefs only when they can no longer be maintained. And of course only to the extent necessary to make them perform their function again. Which is as you say "to maintain a sense of 'understanding'." Obviously, when put this way, the function of belief has nothing to do with what is true. The driving force for maintaining or adjusting beliefs is that sense of understanding, or rather the fear of not having it, even though it is false.
Even if we could hypothetically say that some beliefs can be true, the reason for maintaining them is never motivated by truth. So that immediately makes any rationalization for having them false, and it doesn't even matter anymore what the belief itself is. We attach to beliefs only because we are afraid of not knowing. To such a degree that to most people it isn't even conceivable to neither believe nor disbelieve (i.e. to not attach to it at all). Because that would be admitting a fundamental and intolerable uncertainty, and unravels the very fabric of personal identity.
natasha nikulina 50+
Brian !
It's is a kind of a 'thought experiment'; a good deal of imagination should be involved and a personal experience if you are lucky to have such.The very word 'existance' is challenged here, in a way, yes , it means ' not to be. But there is nothing scary about it, it has nothing to do with demise :)
The plot wouldn't change whether we took 2 identical twins or you and me in ' exactly different environment ', for it goes beyond illusion of separation.
"one massive galactic hippocampus " and " brains in superposition" description is bound to matter that's why it doesn't fit to the experiment. Big ME deals with a state of consciousness which has no extendness in time and space. But we can experience it momentarily and it's enough to colour the thinking. You can fragment it through an analytic view, which is what we have trained our cerebral cortex to do, or you can identify with the formal and functional essence of the experience and intuitively place it in its cosmic context. That takes a reeducation of the senses for current state of human mind…
I don't remember where i took it but I like this lapidary dictum:
"we search everywhere the Unconditional, and we always find only things"
Can we see not seeing 'things' ?
I am not sure you have the context in which my response can make any sense to you, but anyway, thanks for your interest:)
Have a nice day !
John Dunbar 10+
I have to say, being able to experience undivided consciousness doesn't seem to be at all possible. Ive never heard anybody who recalled an experience of cosmic consciousness be able to describe their own brain chemistry, this aspect seems to be based outside the consciousness, which in and of itself would make the experience not undivided consciousness.
I have to wonder if this idea of "consciousness of which has no extended time and space" is another construct of the illusion, an aspect that seems to serve certain individuals better,in their path to replicate life (Just to clarify when I say replicate life I mean find inner peace, make for a better world, and allow for human species to flourish, not just the passing of ones genes). Based on what you said in your response, consciousness is both divided and undivided simultaneously. I wanted to note that I saw mark make an excellent point about this line of thought. Its still based on opposites, which in our previous correspondence(schrodingers cat and collapse of the wave function discussion) I proclaimed this trend to be nothing more than how humans have been built to view the world.
Is this true? If so, why is it true?
Thanks for your reply!
Mark Meijer 100+
Consciousness is already undivided, what causes it to seem divided in our experience is the overlay of the lense of many layers of beliefs. They categorize and split up experience according to themselves, and we think that's how things really are because we never knew better. Actually we did when we were born, infants experience undivided consciousness, but we have since forgotten. The root of the self that we think we are formed at some point during our early developmental years, and is the apparent split upon which all the others are based. When you were born, the you that you think you are wasn't there yet.
It's sometimes referred to as the subject/object split, and it is "artificial", as in contrived by the mind and not representative of reality. They are part of the pattern matching function according to which your experience gets interpreted. Just like with a rorschach ink blot, or one of those pictures that allow you to see different things in them depending on how you interpret them, for example the face/vase picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase
Except all your experience is subject to these filters, it's not just about vision but all your feelings and thoughts are based around it.
Mark Meijer 100+
To directly address this, you need to find out what your beliefs are based on and why they are bogus, sothat you can show your own mind, as it were, that it is wrong and that it should adjust itself accordingly. Not just conceptually in the world of thoughts, but to actually learn to see experience (including thoughts and feelings) accordingly, or find out why you don't. Just like with the face/vase picture, once you see it, you can't unsee it, it is abiding. Because it wouldn't be simply the result of a practice and cultivation the goal of which was never really grokked.
But your entire life and your entire world is literally tied up in the emotional attachments to those beliefs. They ARE you (the you that you think you are) and they ARE your world as you think you know it. So be careful what you wish for. For all intents and purposes, the you that you think you are will eventually cease. There is actually no death other than that. This is not the kumbaya version of enlightenment.
PS. please note by the way, that I could just be talking out of my ass here. Layers of belief have peeled off over time but the process isn't through. There is a lot less of me but the root split is still operating. I have had glimpses of undivided consciousness but they weren't abiding. I am not enlightened.
natasha nikulina 50+
We are not afraid of not knowing, we are curious creatures and we want to know. Knowing is not a destination but the way ; on this way we shape/reshape extend our beliefs ( in the best case scenario ) and the abyss of unknown grows exponentially. And I agree with you, here we should be ready to face a revelation that we actually don't know anything and try to feel comfortable with it and keep on going. Why ? I don't know, I love the way. :)
You seem to invest heavily into true/untrue option. I don't think Truth is something that exists in complete perfect form, what if it is unfolding, extending by virtue of true/untrue dance ? In a sense, Truth is perfectly balanced ' 0 ' , drop anything into it and it is fractured and branches into opposites ' true' and 'untrue'. The balance is broken and still preserved.
And God is a symbol,( it doesn't imply that it is not real.) symbolism is a language of imagination intuition. Imagination retains symbols narratives, not facts. The symbol 'God' invokes in you something you are not even conscious of. You need tons of words to explain what you've got through this symbol.
You read poetry, don't you ? Cross out ' God' everywhere you meet and replace it with " personified creator ' , you will kill the verse. Not only because the rhyme and rhythm would be missing, but mainly because there would be no Symbol to 'tune' you properly to get the message . I could be wrong here ( sure i am ! ), but it works for me .
I try not to talk about God and Holy Doctrine with strong believers / non believers, they are pretty much the same, two sides of the same coin. I would emphasise the word 'strong' here :)
Take care !
Mark Meijer 100+
True/false is not one of those opposites that secretly form a whole. The false ultimately does not exist. I completely understand what you're saying, because for a long time I never considered anything beyond the unity of opposites, the flow of impermanence, the emptiness of form, etc. That's because all those are directly expressed and expressible in the phenomenal world, and it's pretty hard to conceive of anything beyond that.
Impossible, in fact, because all our conceptions are based on the phenomenal. That's why what is beyond the phenomenal is sometimes called the void, because you can't actually imagine a void, just like you can't imagine yourself before you were born, likewise you can't imagine anything that is not of the phenomenal (i.e. not of the senses).
There's nothing to imagine, not even a vacuous space, and that's because imagination is based in sensory experience, which is what produces the phenomenal world. As Obey pointed out in another thread, the mind developed around the senses. Imagination and perception works only for phenomena, not the source of both phenomena and perception.
So when that's all you take on board, all you see is the relative. But what is the container of those opposites? What underlies impermanence? What does it really mean that emptiness is form? What is that inconceivable source of perception? Where does all that expression actually originate? What are they expressions of? That's the absolute, the so-called void which is anything but. The true reality of which the one we experience is a shadow. The source and substance of experience.
Mark Meijer 100+
But that's actually a bait and switch. The unmanifest is actual reality, the illusion created by perception is not. The true exists, the false does not. The phenomenal world is a product of perception. It is what constantly changes, or seems to. Truth is immutable. Mystics like to say that perception creates reality, but that's the same bait and switch. Existence is absolute, perception is projection, and what it creates is the illusion that we think of as reality, but isn't quite it. That's still in duality, and duality is not real.
Likewise symbols are not real, they are also in duality and are not what they symbolize. And all of the phenomenal world (form) is symbolic. There is nothing concrete there, just more layers of symbols, abstractions, some of which are hardwired into our biology and chemistry etc. (all of which is itself symbolic).
Our senses and mind creates the context in which the symbols take their meaning. But it is not reality, just a mental construction and interpretation of reality. What underlies it all? What is outside the bounds of our little human context? What is the primary cause to which there is no second?
Truth is not a matter of interpretation, and not contingent on perspective or scale or period, or it wouldn't be truth.
Mark Meijer 100+
Gabo Moreno 100+
I just said "I think," I did not mean to say that I was sure you actually were making a solipsist point. It just seemed so, and thus I gave the idea to Edward for him to consider the possibility. After all, your argument seemed leading that way.
See ya.
Mark Meijer 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
I totally agree...questioning beliefs is a step toward knowledge, which creates freedom, which brings appreciation and responsibility. I also agree that it is much more beneficial to the individual, as well as all of humankind, to function based on love, rather than fear.
This is one reason I choose not to believe in a god. God(s) and religion(s) seem to be fear based and controlling, even though we are told they are a god(s) of love. This has always seemed contradictory to me, even as a small child, when I began to question religious teachings.
I agree Frans, that to care because we recognize the oneness, interdependence and interconnectedness of life, is more beneficial and genuinely loving.
Hyun Kim
I am a student of Physics, and from my knowledge of the complexity, yet simplicity of how the universe was made to become hints at the fact that there was some hand in creating the mathematics and the symmetry of everything that we know of in the universe today.
I do not believe that the universe we live in is the only universe that exists, nor do I believe that a superior being really cares or does anything about what was created, but I do believe that some hand was played in the creation of not just this universe, but the fabric and the formula used to create the kind of "sea" that our universe is but just a small part of.
I guess the choosing to be atheist comes from the fact that the society we live in states that being cool is the most important thing out there.
Gabo Moreno 100+
I should add that your wonderment at how the universe works does not give you the right to conclude about such a diverse bunch as atheists, whose reasons for disbelief might vary, but who would promptly say that their disbelief is not a choice any more than we could choose to believe that the sky is blue. Let alone a choice for the sole reason of being cool. Is it cool for you to believe in "a hand out there" while rejecting the quite most common interventionist gods? How can you be so self-righteous to think that your rejection of the common gods is well funded, while that from others is just being cool? After all, for all practical purposes you are an atheist.
John Dunbar 10+
Current American society does seems to be absolutely obsessed with status and populism, but I think there is a difference between atheism and nihilism. There are always going to be people in every respect of life that seem to have had their opinion formed by others.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Any evidence for your claim that atheists don't have a belief in gods and goddesses because it is cool?
I've heard many atheists have a hard time and suffer for their position, including in the US. They don't and I don't lack belief because it is cool. For me it is simply a lack of evidence for belief in any type of deity, especially the thousands of more specifically detailed ones which conflict and therefore at best only one is correct. This is reinforced by everything we understand in the universe pointing to no supernatural help in input.
Colleen Steen 500+
I do not label myself, and I do not believe in a god. This choice is certainly NOT because I want to be "cool", or "hip". It is a choice I have made after 60+ years of exploration, research, study, and practice of several religious and philosophical beliefs. If I get new information that causes me to believe in a god, I will change my perception. So far, with years of exploration, and an NDE/OBE, I do not have that information.
You say that atheists do not do much research themselves. If you yourself do some research, you may find that those who do not believe in a god often have an in-depth religious background, and have indeed researched quite extensively.
I agree with you that the universe we live in is not the only universe that exists:>)
Lejan . 30+
this is an interesting question you are presenting and I like to bring in my experiences.
Today I consider myself being agnostic and was brought up during childhood in Roman-catholic faith, emphasised in kindergarten and school and within a family less strict on it and mainly based on the 'golden rule'.
During my 'transformation' process I never had to choose consciously not to believe in God, it happened gradually, naturally to the point of my personal insight. This proces was induced by various reasons, yet mainly lacking some direct feedback and faith. After thinking and 'feeling' deep on this topic I could neither find proof of Gods existence nor against its existence and so it became clear to me that I was agnostic and I am happy with it ever since.
As I do not have to 'defend' nor 'share' any God I could keep my mind open to all religions, which to me was the best thing that happened in this respect. Yet I turn into a blazing critic towards any absolutism, fanaticism, double standards and feigned innocence if its comes close in reach.
What makes me wonder though is, if all religions together - in balance and over time - have contributed positively or negatively to this world compared to their imaginative non existence were mankind was only guided by the golden rule.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I'm also an atheist because I don't have a belief in any gods or goddesses due to a lack of evidence for any I have heard of. I'm open to compelling evidence.
So I'm an agnostic atheist. If you don't believe and don't know you may be in the same boat.
Interesting question. Hard to no the answer.
Colleen Steen 500+
It's not difficult for me to say I do not have the answer. Actually, nobody has the answer for sure, we are all speculating, based on information we choose to accept at any given time. So, technically, we are all "in the same boat"!!! :>)
Lejan . 30+
in this context I would prefer to see all of us beeing on the same pond, lake or ocean, yet the boats we are using to cross it are quite different from each other. Some float alongside each other in peace, some are firing all their cannons and some define all other boats going in the wrong direction.
What makes you certain that nobody has found 'the answer'? If there is such thing, maybe some have already, maybe none of them, personally I don't know...
Lejan . 30+
nature itself is diverse and mainly not linear, which reflects in our nature. And because we are questioning, our answers, doubts and believes are reflecting this too. Some alike, some similar, some in their opposite. This is our nature, as we are part of the whole.
I remember how nice it felt to realize that we are all made out of stardust and although temporarily granted, a little bit more akin to fairies... :o)
Lejan . 30+
as you like the idea of beeing made out of stardust, I am happy to say, you can be assured of this! :o) To be a bit more precise, 93% of the mass in our body is stardust. The rest was created by the beginning of the universe itself.
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/poster-stardust.cfm
Seen in this light, any diet then is nothing but making us less 'star' alike... :o)
Lejan . 30+
Lejan . 30+
thank you for sharing this interesting thought. And yes, we are sitting in the same boat (agnosticism), yet in different compartments. But I can see you very well... :o)
Agnosticism is compatible with atheism to a certain degree, yet there is a distinct difference in between them. Atheism is based on denial of a God, where as agnosticism is based on the idea that it is not recognizable whether or not a god exists.
My lack in faith and believe in any God is not enough reason for me to deny the possibility of it. This is why I am not sitting right next to you in the boat, as I am no atheist.
As much as I am lacking faith, I am struck with awe about our world, the universe and somehow it is difficult for me for this to have happened randomly or by chance... I can just not figure out its reason and most likely never will.
So, let's keep rowing... :o)
Colleen Steen 500+
I agree...I like to "float alongside each other in peace". I believe we all have our own truth/beliefs, depending on what information we embrace at any given time. I like the idea of continuing to "row" through the life experience with an open mind and heart, and I'm content with not having all the answers:>)
Colleen Steen 500+
I agree..."nature itself is diverse and mainly not linear, which reflects in our nature. And because we are questioning, our answers, doubts and believes are reflecting this too. Some alike, some similar, some in their opposite. This is our nature, as we are part of the whole"...very well said:>)
I like the idea that we may be made of "stardust"....nice thought and feeling:>)
This little humble piece of stardust will continue to row contentedly through the life adventure, always seeking to be moving alongside others, because the alternative is not pleasurable...in my humble stardust opinion:>)
Colleen Steen 500+
I LOVE having that information....thanks:>)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Gnosticism is about knowing theism is about belief.
I don't deny there might be a god. That would be Gnostic atheism. There could be thousands of them.
I don't know but haven't seen any reason to believe, so I don't.
I'm not a theist, I don't believe, so I'm a non theist, an Atheist.
Colleen Steen 500+
Some religious beliefs, including fear of a god, have often served to seperate people, and unfortunately, we see this behavior right here on this discussion thread. I believe we are all interconnected, and when the majority of people in our world recognize this, there is a possibility of peace and harmony in our world. It begins with each and every one of us as induviduals. "BE" what we want to "SEE" in our world.
I believe that as we evolve and recognize that we have the ability to think and feel for ourselves, free of religious dogma that is not peaceful, there will be less trust in those behaviors, beliefs and practices which seperate us.
Frans Kellner 100+
Some have a good idea and that is good, others hijack such ideas for their personal interest and that is bad.
If stories are institutionalized it is mostly bad for they need to sustaine that institution while on the other hand some members work for the intended job what is good.
So everything human you find in all human efforts whether it's politics or religion.
Lejan . 30+
the imperfection of humankind is evident and I am not complaining about this, as I am part of it.
But my simple understanding of religion is, that because of this our imperfection, religion came alive to make us acting a bit better than we would have acted before.
Commandments and definitons of 'good' and 'bad' is evidence for this strive.
But, emotionally, it makes a difference to me if a none religious person is doing something inappropriate to someone else or if the same deed would have been done by someone who claims to be religious for himself. Especially then if 'confession' and 'forgiveness' is used later on to ease the burden of ones 'conscience'.
To me this seems more like a 'wildcard' than growing towards ones very own responsibility.
If the overall output or religion was negative, the concept of it would have decreased our naturally given imperfection and was therefore to be re-considered, as our strive should be towards improvement not degradation.
Frans Kellner 100+
Believe can divert normal reasoning.
An actual case here on the news is about a monk that worked with handicapped children 50 years ago. He killed most of them with compassion, to bring them to God without suffering.
It was noticed and reported by bystanders but kept silent, even denied until recently.
Colleen Steen 500+
That is HORRIBLE...done in the name of God...how sad.
edward long 100+
Mark Meijer 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
I agree that some folks hijack ideas and beliefs for their personal interest and that does not serve humankind at all.
I believe that religions may have been formed originally to help organize people into practices of more useful behaviors... "make us acting a bit better than we would have acted before", as you say Jan-Bernd Pauli.
I reject fear based religious dogma and fear based god, because many times throughout history, and today, religions and belief in a god have NOT served to encourage people to behave in a more useful way. It has often encouraged and sanctioned behaviors which have been destructive, controlling and abusive to masses of people who are non-believers. In that respect, I do not perceive fear based religions or god to be at all beneficial to humankind. Religions CAN serve a useful purpose to individuals and humankind when/if the beliefs are used appropriately...meaning when it does not adversly impact others.
You are absolutely right Jan-Bernd Pauli, that religious practices advocate "confession" and 'forgiveness' to ease the burden of ones 'conscience'. I suggest having a good conscience
and behaving with respect toward others, and perhaps one does not always have to run to the confessional to ease one's conscience!
I remember when I made my first communion, which required my first confession. As a 6yr. old child, I struggled to figure out what I could tell the priest. I did not believe I had sinned in any way.
I asked one of the nuns about this..."what do I say when I go in there"? She said "make something up...just tell the priest something". So, I made up a "sin"...a lie...for my first confession, and that was the beginning of my questioning regarding the teachings of the church I was born into.
Whether we believe in a religion and/or god or not, my perception of the life experience is to continually grow, learn, evolve and improve, and that is not always what religions encourage.
Frans Kellner 100+
Here it was no different. As children we told each other what we could confess to look a little bad. Not too bad of course because you had to do your penance to pay it off.
Lejan . 30+
it was the same with me at first confession! I consulted the whole family but my brother, because his list would have gone beyond the scope :o) and there wasn't really anything I had done worth to mention. Even thogh I was a wild child and was scuffling with a lot of other boys, I always had my very own reasons to do so and did not regret any of it. So the list was made up like yours and became a first 'crack' in by encounter with religion. And why was a need to mention this anyway, if God was almighty he already knew, so why wasting time on this in the first place? :o)
On the other hand, children by their nature, can behave very brutal towards each other and I have been part of it as well. Yet it was the model of my parents and the way they carefully made me re-think my actions, so that some of my deeds at early age stay reminding myself up to this very day to do better than that.
Your rejection of fear based religions I share. They are not constructive and chain people insted of guiding them towards responsible actions. And if it comes to missionizing, things really have gone bad in the past.
At young age I could not name what I was missing in the bible, yet I knew that what was described there did not belong to my country. There was no desert, no camel to be found in Germany. We did not live in tents (still don't) and never did. So to me it became more like a cultural shock at that time and what was around me in my world and what I liked the most was not mentioned at all. There were no large green forests, no ravens, buzzards or deers. There was no mist climbing from the trees or lingering in the valleys. Where was the incredible sight of all the stars at night?
Today I know that the religion who once covered it had been banished by christianization, yet it's replacement I could never quite accept at young age at that time.
And even today I am sad for the loss of all the ritual places, which got destroyed by placing churches on.
Colleen Steen 500+
Thank you Frans. There may be some folks who would disagree with your statement!!! LOL:>)
I believe we are all born innocent, honest, trusting, curious, exploring, unconditionally loving little beings.
You're right Frans...we had to follow the fear based rules of the church no matter what. We did the same thing as you describe...figure out what we could confess to look a little bad because that is what was expected of us. But we didn't want it to be "too bad" because of the price we had to pay in penance. What a horrible thing to do to little vulnerable, open, honesting, trusting children!!!
Lejan . 30+
by what you just said (below), you have me on your side.
But what turns out to be quite difficult is to define which way we could go for humankind to develop more positively.
I was just within another TED conversation today about 'parenting' and as more I was thinking about it, as more it became difficult to spot down what is crucial to hand over to next generations to evolve into strong and fair individuals.
http://www.ted.com/conversations/12372/everyone_who_is_contemplating_1.html
On the one side we already have a non-religious based set of values for humanity, on the other side we can and never should enforce it to be implemented (as this was contradictory to itself). So how could it get started without dominating others, as in doing so the claim would be rised to know better. Either way, this seems to lead into a dead end.
I was once thinking, that with the rise of the technological level of a nation, religion would decrease naturally. Yet especially the latest discussions within the US about Creationism has corrected my thought.
So what to do best remains unsolved to me till today. Do you have any suggestions?
Lejan . 30+
yes, the limitation not to be able to reply on 3rd level comments makes conversation a bit difficult here. So this refers to your ideas about 'humanity and empowerment'.
I highly support the concept of laicism, which did not penetrate deep enough in many nations and unfortunately so it did in mine.
Yet this is part of most religious strategies. You need to get them 'young' so that indoctrination diggs in deep to the core. Only this way, religion as we now it today, was able to outlive any other concept of human regulations. Many great nations rose and perished, yet many regligions survived. So seen as a marketing strategy, they did a pretty good job and that's why it is so difficult to get them out of the way to empower people for themselves and the community they live in.
About your presented trend that people choose more requently to think and feel for themselves, I am afraid, that this a demographic tendency only. According to an article on Wikipedia, the worldwide trend for people choose for religion is increasing. In Europe for example, the tendency towards religion is decreasing in countries like Great Britain, France and Germany, whereas south/east states such as Italy, Spain and Poland count for increasing numbers. Worldwide the overall tendency is increasing!! So in my view, the change towars free and self-determined individuals stays a very slow process and related to education and a rise in prosperity.
Regarding discussions I can only hope those to rise, which are questioning the influence of religions in democratic societies. In Germany, for instance, the Catholic Church is still allowed to have their sibject thought in school. Yet instead of getting rid of this historic habit, we are instead discussing about the Islam getting thought as well... Please don't get me wrong, I consider religious freedom a valuable part of democracy, yet there is no place for it in the education system for young people itself. At Universities it's fine
Lejan . 30+
I highly agree with you!
And similar to what you described we had in Germany just recently a whole wave of adults who began to speak openly of what has happened to them when they grew up in churchly run children's homes here in Germany. Child abuse!!!
This has cast a huge shadow on the churches here and rightly so! And many people resigned from the church in protest, as up to this very day the church is not able to deal with in in an open and appropriate manner.
Colleen Steen 500+
And here in the US we have the multitude of children molested by priests...supposedely the representatives of god here on earth....actually, that is a global issue...not just in the USA.
There have also been several child abuse cases here, claimed (and proven in a court of law) by people who were as children, abused and sexually molested in church sponsored orphanages.
There are many wounded people in our world BECAUSE organized religions sanction abusive violent behaviors. The hypocritical, contradictory dogma, also confuses people, so not only is there obvious physical abuse, but many people are living with the ramifications of emotional abuse their entire lives, which causes a great deal of confusion.
God is a loving god, and he will punish you....do what he says and you might be saved...or not.
I remember when volunteering at the women's shelter, it was not unusual to talk with women who were very confused about what love actually is. "He's beating me...punishing me, so he must love me". "I have a broken arm and I just lost the baby I was carrying because he kicked me in the stomach right after he broke my arm...he told me he loves me....is this love? Or abuse?" These were questions we heard ALL the time....it was NOT an isolated case.
Because of the teachings of some religions, children grow up with a twisted, confused perception of love, god, and the life experience. This is another reason I do not believe in a god, or embrace a specific religion. In my perception, it wounds, confuses and seperates too many people in our world.
Colleen Steen 500+
This is in response to your comment beginning with...
"by what you just said (below), you have me on your side".
I am on the side of humanity, and it sounds like you are already on that side as well. To evolve more positively, we need to empower people rather than disempower each other.
Parenting is very important, and right now, we have parents who were disempowered as children, teaching their children the same disempowering information. There is NOTHING empowering about telling a child s/he is born a sinner, for example.
My suggestion is to STOP trying to dominate others. STOP teaching disempowering, dominating dogma to little innocent children. STOP abusing and violating the rights of others. This seems like simply "stuff" to me, and yet some people are so entrenched in their dominating religious dogma, they fail to see the damage it is causing.
I think/feel that with the continued technological improvement, isolation will be less of a problem. Isolation is one factor in the ability to abuse and violate rights, so I think that will be very helpful to the cause to help empower people rather than disempower.
As humans, we are evolving. The brain is getting larger, and can hopefully think on a different and more compassionate, loving level. More and more people all the time, are choosing to think and feel for themselves, rather than be blindly led by religions. More people are realizing that they can make choices and decisions for themselves, rather than be dependant on a god or abusive dogma. What do you think?
I don't honestly think there are more discussions...perhaps we are more aware of discussions because of internet connections? I believe those who cling to a dominating religion are becoming frightened, that there may not be the support for their beliefs any more, and they may have to change to "fit in" with the new world view!
Colleen Steen 500+
Response to your comment...
"yes, the limitation not to be able to reply on 3rd level comments makes conversation a bit difficult here. So this refers to your ideas about 'humanity and empowerment'.
I agree...levels of response opportunities are challenging...if this is the biggest challenge of my day, I am content!!! LOL:>)
I agree that part of most religious strategies is to penetrate our world on many different levels. If the intent is to control people (which I believe), it would have to infiltrate on many levels...correct?
I agree that the conscious intent of some religions is to indoctrinate vulnerable children, who often do not have a choice. Some religions did a great job of "marketing", as you say. In many cases, religions have so much control, that people have stopped thinking and feeling for themselves.
I believe that is why we get the hypocrasy and contradictions apparent with religious beliefs. People simply did not challenge the beliefs given to them by religions. If people were genuinely empowered in themselves, they would not follow blindly, and that is something I believe religions are afraid of today. My perception, is that those who are arguing the loudest, are those who are afraid to lose support for the beliefs they depend on.
Regarding my belief that people choose more frequently to think and feel for themselves....mmmmmmmmm
Perhaps that is my wishful thinking/feeling! LOL:>)
Change is a slow process, and I'm going to continue with my wishfull thinking/feeling!!! What we focus on expands. I give a lot of energy toward change...empowering people to think and feel for themselves. While many times, as children, we did not have a choice regarding our circumstances, as thinking, feeling adults, we DO have choices in every moment:>)
I am not attached to others believing in religion/god...or not...AS LONG AS it does not manifest into behaviors that adversly impact others....which religion often does.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Childhood religious indoctrination is one of the most hateful things. Its almost a human rights abuse.
calling someone a Muslim child doesn't help if they are too young to comprehend what it even means.
Colleen Steen 500+
There have been quite a few court proceedings in this area, addressing the sexual molestation of children by priests. I've seen some of the testimony, and listened to interviews with victims.
One common thread, is that the victims were all told similar things by the priests, as they were sexually molested...sometimes for several years. One gentleman told an interviewer that he was always told by his parents to do whatever the priest wanted, because he was the representative of god. The man said he KNEW as a child that what was happening was wrong, but he was told that if he didn't, he would go to hell...he was told to do what the priest wanted, or else. He was told not to tell anyone because god wouldn't like that and he (god) would punish him for betraying the priest. The priests told the children they would be punished if they did not comply.
The man in the interview expressed his confusion, which he had been living with all his adult life. Everything the children were told reflects the constant programming by some churches....do what we say no matter what...accept whatever we say on faith. It doesn't matter if what we are saying makes sense or not...just do it.
Children are deprived the right and encouragement to make informed decisions...to make choices that are healthy in their life experience.
These are all the lies children are told every day, and this is another reason I am strongly against religion and god. Church leaders often misuse their position at the expense of many innocent people. They then hide under the protective rules of a religion.
The atrosities are now being called what they are...a crime. Perpetrators are now facing the courts, and those who pretended to have a blind eye, are being punished. However, many times the church leaders are STILL not accepting responsibility or accountability for their actions.
Mark Meijer 100+
If one chooses to be an atheist sothat they are not accountable to god, then they have already affirmed that god may actually exist. If one decides to believe in god as if it were optional, then they have already affirmed that god may not actually exist. So either way their choice would be a lie.
Colleen Steen 500+
I don't see the choice as black and white as you do, nor can I judge anyone for "a lie". How does it serve you to judge others for living a "lie" because you do not agree?
Although I do not label myself, I strongly believe that I have made a choice to not believe in a god, based on many years of study, research, practice of several different religions and philosophical beliefs and a near death experience during which I did not meet a god "out there". I definitely choose to feel the way I do, based on information I have at this time, and I cannot imagine why or how you can judge it to NOT be a choice.
I CAN start or stop believing at any time, if/when I get different information, and I cannot understand why that would not be true of everyone.
Mark Meijer 100+
So for example, you say you don't believe in god, as a result of prior experiences of which you weren't the author. Were you free to choose how those influenced you? Are you free to choose right now to start believing in god? I say you're not. Go ahead and try.
Sure you could change your mind in dependence on new information, but that doesn't sound very free to me, again you don't control what info comes your way and when. So now let's say new info comes in and you suddenly believe in god as a result. Did you choose to change your mind? Or did your mind simply change? Would you be able to prevent your mind from changing? Would you be able to choose either way at that moment, to either change your mind or not?
In other words, are you free to start and stop believing at a whim, as easily as you would pick up and set down a glass of water? Obviously not.
You said it yourself: "I CAN start or stop believing at any time, if/when I get different information"
That means NOT at any time, but only if and when you get different information. That's not any time at all, it's quite specific. And if and when that info changes your mind, you can't choose to change your mind back, just like you can't change it right now. Or if you did, would it be genuine? Obviously not.
Colleen Steen 500+
I'm good...hope you are good too:>)
If what you write is not your opinion, why do you write it? What's the point in sharing something that is not your opinion...something that you do not agree with?
You do not know if "they" are fooling "themselves" or not. I am surprised by this comment from you Mark, because many of your other comments are so very insightful. This doesn't sound like you at all!
I AM indeed the author of many of my experiences.....by choice. Yes, I am free to choose to believe based on information I have in any given moment. If this does not sound free to you...so be it. It certainly feels very free to me. Yes, I could absolutely choose to change my mind based on new information...that does not seem difficult for me. I control a LOT of information that comes my way by being open minded, open hearted, and seeking information. There are many avenues by which to assimilate information, and I wonder why you would want to limit yourself by believing otherwise.
I CAN indeed start or stop believing at any time, (which most people can do), if/when I get different information. I control the thoughts moving through my mind Mark, and I do not see why anyone would want to give up that choice in him/herself. It is indeed a choice.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I won't get into epistemology, but suggest there are different depths or types of belief and knowledge and different levels of evidence required to support beliefs or push a belief into the realm of knowledge.
Some might believe in a god the same way I believe that the computer in front of me exists. Particularly if they grow up where it was just accepted. Others might profess they believe in some God, even argue for it, but have this deep down doubt or suspicion perhaps floating around their unconscious and that they habitually push down or avoid whenever it impinges their consciousness.
I'm also not sure choice is the right word for not believing in gods or goddesses. Maybe realisation or acceptance is better.
On an unconscious level, you can not control it, but you can choose to squash or distract the doubts when they float into your consciousness until it becomes a habit.
Alternatively you can choose to get more information actively.
There was a period in my life, attending church after I had really started to question, when I probably knew in my "heart" or unconscious that belief was unjustified, but if you asked me I would have professed I was a Christian.
Later on I did choose to intellectually explore this dilemma rather than avoid it. After much consideration I intellectually accepted that it was most likely not true. At some point I aligned my intellectual position, with my unconscious world view.
It is sort of a choice to turn away from the dissonance and vocalise acceptance, to align your conscious thing position with what you "feel" is true. This is almost a choice, to be honest with yourself.
Another choice is when you profess to others that you no longer believe and begin to act and live in accordance with your non theist views, to be authentic.
Mark Meijer 100+
I suspect you may find that a bit of a shock, especially if you think everything is a matter of opinion. Which is actually not far from the truth, in a way. But not quite it. You must think I've lost all my capacity for insight and common sense which you once thought I did have. You must think so, because if you didn't, you would have to honestly consider the alternative. And, no offense, but it seems that you're more interested in displaying and comparing opinions.
If your belief or lack of belief in god occurs in dependence on anything else, as anything must, then by definition it is not a free choice, but a necessary consequence. If you honestly can't see that, there's nothing else I could say (or would care to say) to convince you, except to repeat once again:
Go ahead and try to believe in god, or for anyone who already believes, go ahead and drop that belief. Right now, choose to switch or change your beliefs, any beliefs, and please let me know if (and only if) it works. If you can't do it, it's not a free choice. It doesn't get any more obvious.
Sincerely,
Mark
P.S.: Remember that the mind is expert at playing tricks. You wouldn't want to take your thoughts and feelings at face value if you're interested in the truth. Before you trust your perception, you'll want to find out something about the unreliability of your instruments of perception. See for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-deception
or:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
or:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
Colleen Steen 500+
OK....I agree to disagree. In my perception, the nature of beliefs is a matter of opinion. Believing in a god, or not believing in a god is a choice, in my humble opinion. Based on your many other comments, I am surprised that you do not think/feel it to be a choice.
No, I do not find it a shock, nor do I think you've lost capacity for insight and common sense. I am "surprised", which is exactly what I stated above. I'm not interested in trying to convince anyone of anything either Mark, which is why I agree to disagree.
Sharing thoughts, feelings, ideas, perceptions, beliefs and opinions, is part of what TED is about, in my humble opinion, and I do not choose to be offended by your opinion:>)
EDIT:
I notice that you edited your comment since I posted my comment.
My belief, or lack of belief in anything, is based on information. I take in information, and make a choice regarding beliefs. If you believe it is not a "free choice", but rather a "necessary consequence" for you, so be it. That is not what it is for me. You said above that you were not trying to convince me of anything.
As I already said Mark...I CAN change my beliefs when/if I get new information. Why is it so important for you to convince me that I cannot?
Colleen Steen 500+
Mark Meijer 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
Barry Palmer 50+
Suppose a creator was interested in testing one and only one matter, moral judgment. So this creator creates a world of animals that slowly evolve, perfecting their instincts for survival of both the individual and the tribe. The process of evolution assures that these creatures are completely devoted to a single purpose, the survival of their genes. Then to complete the recipe he adds a logic box of exquisite complexity, even capable of contemplating the mystery of its own consciousness. Most importantly, this logic box is capable of developing many different schools of morality, based on both spiritual beliefs and the natural world. Would not this creature be the perfect test subject, continuously confronting moral dilemmas?
Omar Ulloa
edward long 100+
Marshal Tucker
Epicurus
Adam Cross
Stewart Gault 30+
edward long 100+
Gabo Moreno 100+
edward long 100+
Are you talkin' uh me? I didn't ask a question, or express an opinion. I simply asked Mr. Lorenz if he planned to compose a Closing Statement and shared my experience regarding the difficulty of sifting out the ancillary traffic so as to summarize those responses germane to the question. Not that I don't appreciate your arguments, as always, but I spent my 2-cents worth way back there somewhere. I am interested to know the answers to the question regardless of how "nonsensical and self-righteous" you judge it to be. Is that OK my friend? Allow for Faith Gabo. Ta Ta.
Gabo Moreno 100+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
There's one straight answer.
In fact I have never even contemplated this or have it come up when discussing with other atheists. Not even on the radar.
I don't recall having heard a single atheist put this forward as a rationale.
Its kind of a bizarre surprising question. Do people actually think this is a reason that leads people to disbelieve in god or goddesses? If so I'm guessing it is theists who think this.
I think the question reflects more on the questioner. Not sure if this a an honest proposal or just a put down. It does show a real lack of understanding of atheism from my perspective.
Colleen Steen 500+
It is not the question that is "volatile" (questions are simply questions) but rather, how some people choose to address the question. The question being..."Why have people (Atheists) Chosen not to believe in God? Does this give freedom to live life without becoming answerable to anyone?"
Several people have given very "precise answers to the question as asked". Personally, although I do not label myself, I do not believe in a god, because of information gathered, researched, studied and explored for over 60 years, in addition to a NDE/OBE in which I did not meet a god, nor was there any indication whatsoever of heaven or hell "out there". I experienced an interconnectedness that is often lacking in the human life experience BECAUSE of religions, which often cause seperation of people.
Because I perceive everything and everyone to be interconnected, I feel very responsible and accountable to myself, all the people in our world, and our environment. In other words, I feel accountable to everyone and everything. At this time, with the information I have, I do not believe in a god. However, if there is a god out there somewhere, he/she/it would be included with my feeling of accountability to everyone and everything, because my belief in interconnectedness, includes everyone/everything. I honestly don't know how to say it any more "precise" than that
I sincerely hope this may begin to meet your demand to have "straight answers".
edward long 100+
Colleen Steen 500+
I have NEVER stated that "the Holy Bible teaches a fatalistic view of life", and I would VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT IF YOU WOULD DISCONTINUE TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, WHICH YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY DOING TO TRY TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT.
I wrote, that I learned something from 12 years of catholic schooling. I'VE CLEARED THAT UP WITH YOU IN THREE DIFFERENT COMMENTS. This is beginning to feel like harrassment from you Edward.
Calling me stubborn and evasive, along with ignorant and uninformed is in violation of the TED terms of use.
The topic question...AGAIN EDWARD...is..."Why have people (Atheists) Chosen not to believe in God?" This is not a bible study, which you apparently would like it to be.
edward long 100+
The following cut and pasted words are from your mouth and I did not put them there. They speak clearly of a fatalistic view of life:
"We are told we are sinners, for no apparent reason, and must suffer and work toward connecting with god our whole lives. Then "he" will judge us at the end of our life."
The Holy Bible does not teach that we are to "suffer and work toward connecting with god our whole lives". I am not trying to trouble, worry or torment you (the definition of harassment). I am trying to get you to recognize the difference between your life experiences and actual Bible truth. Please cut and paste my statement(s) calling you stubborn, evasive, ignorant or uninformed. Until you do I plead innocent. I understand you feel accountable to share your NDE/OBE experiences. My concern is that you mislead folks about what the Holy Bible teaches. This is very much consistent with Mr. Lorenz's question.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Or just "we are told".
If just "we are told" you might not even disagree.
I was also told I was a sinner and could only be saved by accepting Jesus as my personal saviour. I think this bit is actually biblically based.
Colleen Steen 500+
You are correct...I said..."we are told"...Edward copied the statement correctly, so he knows exactly what I wrote as well. I was addressing the topic question...
"Why have people (Atheists) Chosen not to believe in God?" Nowhere in the introduction, does the facilitator of this discussion ask for, or require bible references. That appears to be Edward's attemp to promote his own beliefs, and is consistantly off topic.
Unfortunately, this is the kind of behavior, which causes me to move further from the belief in a god or religion. When words, meanings and interpretations are twisted and used with anger, religious dogma and bible study no longer serve as a beneficial life guide.
I have addressed the topic question based on my beliefs, which evolved from 12 years of catholic schooling, research, study, exploration of several different religions and philosophical beliefs, and a NDE/OBE.
Obey, I appreciate your intervention....thanks. I'm out of thumbs for you at the moment!
Edward,
You know exactly where on this thread you called non-believers ignorant and uninformed, which you have apologized for, and continue to do. It is right in your comment above that you write..."then I can only assume you are being stubborn and evasive". The evidence is right here on this thread at this moment...I just checked...so unless you remove the comments, it it clear Edward. Most people who have participated in this discussion are aware of it Edward, so I feel no need to copy it. I do not enjoy regurgitating and going round and round in circles with information that is off topic.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
E G 10+
Come on , you talk about atheists here , they label themselves as rational guys , as guys who think and after this thinking to adopt atheism , what feelings ?no feelings , thinking , maybe after it feelings .
Aren't they the guys who dismiss the argument from the theistic side about 'feeling of God ' as unfunded , as wrong in the end ? and now you tell me this guys are atheists because of a 'feeling of right' ?
Marshal Tucker
David Gorniak
Religious or non religious feeling imposes itself onto us and at best we can rationalize those feelings.
Dan Geurin 10+
Is there a God? I don't know
Why are we here? I don't know
Is there life after death? I don't know
Not knowing the answers to these questions doesn't make me not want to be a good person. I'm not trying to do my best because there may be a higher power to answer to after we die. I'm trying to do my best while I'm here because it's all that I can do. I know that I have the gift of life. I have chosen to try to make the most of it. I think as highly of other's lives as I do my own and try to help people when I can. It's a shared experience for all of us and I try to be a good neighbor locally and globally.
There is no comfort for me not knowing the answers to these questions. However, I do take comfort in the belief that I'm doing the best that I can while I'm here for its own sake.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Your description fills me up with satiric joy!
Change 'China' with another country with belief traditions and 'atheism' to their established belief system... You got the formula for children receiving education of the prior generations value systems. Religious or not religious, we do this constantly... Religion is just the best example.
*Why have people (Atheists) Chosen not to believe in God?*
The way God is/has [been] presented in history gives off the image there is some deity looking down at us, with an ultimate plan and a higher knowing or design for all of life. The 2 major problems continue when people without understanding nature decide to create the images and paint pictures of a human-mirrored God; jealousy, anger, resentiment, disappointment, and other emotions. Problems: 1. people ignore they may be biologically prone to creating humans (or the qualities of being human) as God and the void of "what is God?" is filled in with doctrine and not constant exploration of self and nature. -and/or- 2. they are refusing to look at natural studies outside of their belief systems in order to understand and find overlaps of God's nature (divine nature).
'1' is the hardest to defend, but simply, as animals we place our species on "the most important factor" list - in our: unconscious, subconscious, physiological nature to create consciousness, etc. If we naturally are anthropocentric, God would become the image of the human that is painting him/her/it - the shared painting is more or less the religious description of the human-mirrored God.
However, I cannot disprove there is no God. I am beyond a skeptic. For all we know we are one giant experiment for another more intelligent species of humanoid. But, if God does exist, it is by understanding nature in which we can understand God.
Why should they believe?
*Does this give freedom to live life ...?*
Absolutely not. No one who labels themselves 'atheist' would normally suggest such a brutish thing
Obey No1kinobe 50+
At some point religions come down to faith. Their gods or goddesses are not tangible in an ordinary sense etc etc.
I note faith is not a good method for discerning the truth as evidenced by wild array of religious and related beliefs.
You mention "God". You haven't defined which one you mean. There have been thousands of gods and goddesses including Deist and Pantheist etc, some with many more sects and millions if not billions of specific individual interpretations.
I not Christians have Chosen not to believe in the Muslim God or Zeus etc. Atheists, just go one more.
There is just a huge soup of conflicting supernatural beliefs and claims. None I know of have any compelling evidence.
What if god is actually best described by an extinct religion?
Lorenzo Lorenz
I MEAN THE GOD WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE, HIS FINGERPRINTS ARE ALL OVER IT AND WE ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AROUND US TO SEE TANGIBLE EXAMPLES OF WHAT HE IS LIKE.
There is only one God, and He has made Himself known to us in three Persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each reveals a different aspect of God’s character; much like a diamond with many faces or facets reflects the light, and displays the beauty within the whole gemstone.
Another picture that helps us understand what God is like is water. Water can exist in three different forms; solid, liquid and gas. We know the solid as ice, the liquid as water and the gas as steam, but each state is still water – just in a different form.
God made us in His image. This doesn’t mean that we look like God, but that we have some of the characteristics of God within us. We have aspects of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit within us and the easiest aspect of God for us to identify with, the Son; Jesus Christ.
God the Son, Jesus, came to Earth and was born as a baby. Jesus had a human body, knew hunger and thirst, he got tired and slept, he felt pain and sadness, he worked and grew, he learned and he was tempted, just like us! All these characteristics, and more, show us that Jesus was human.
However, Jesus was also God. He did miracles and healed people to demonstrate the power of God. What was even more amazing is that Jesus allowed the authorities to put Him to death, so that the penalty of our wrongdoings, the sin that separated us from God, could be paid. However, this was not the end; because he was God, death had no control over Him and he was raised to life again. When Jesus did return to Heaven, the Holy Spirit came to live in the hearts of those who became followers of Jesus and enables them to be like Jesus.
Colleen Steen 500+
You say..."What was even more amazing is that Jesus allowed the authorities to put Him to death, so that the penalty of our wrongdoings, the sin that separated us from God, could be paid".
Apparently, he had no control over the attenpt to pay "the penalty of our wrongdoings, the sin that separated us from God", because we are told that as little babies coming onto this earth, we are born with original sin. We are told we are sinners, for no apparent reason, and must suffer and work toward connecting with god our whole lives. Then "he" will judge us at the end of our life.
We are also told, based on comments on this thread, that it doesn't matter anyway, because our names are already written in a book, which indicates who will be saved, and who will not.
Surely you see the contradictions, which are very apparent.
edward long 100+
edward long 100+
John Dunbar 10+
Also Lorenzo you say the one true God? How can you be sure of this?There have been hundreds, if not thousands of Gods that have popped in and out of existence since the first records of human culture. Why is it that you are not saying Horus is the one true God? You offered nothing to answer obey's question, except your assertion that this God you speak of is all around us. Where is he, can you be more specific?
Colleen Steen 500+
Sorry I could not get this closer to your comment starting with...
"Your second paragraph is at variance with the Holy Bible."
I respect the fact that you believe the bible to be a good reference book, and I believe the bible to be, at best, an interesting story about conditions at the time it was written. That being said, I would not, of course, use it for reference. It seems silly that you would ask for that!
The comment, which seems to offend you, is from my experience of 12 years with catholic schooling. The nuns taught hundreds/thousands of us that we were born sinners, and must suffer and work toward connecting with god our whole lives. It's only information I was told with 12 years of catholic schooling Edward, and it is something I do not believe.
Again Edward, I remind you of the topic..."Why have people (Atheists) Chosen not to believe in God?"
It does not seem reasonable or appropriate for you to demand bible references, when I am trying to explain why I do not believe in a god, or the bible as a reference for life.
It feels like you are grasping for straws to keep your argument going.
Linda Taylor 50+
It's a nice story but it is only a story.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Sounds like one of the Christian trinity type gods based on the bible. Thanks for clarifying. There are so many different ideas of god and gods this helps.
You seem pretty sure you know there is a god and what he is like and the book that describes him best.
Without relying in the bible, for which there is no reasonable evidence to support its supernatural claims, how do you know your god created the universe and not some other god or even some not well understood natural process?
If you rely on the bible for evidence then so can anyone with an old religious text.
How do you know a God exists? Who created god? Where did he come from and how do you know this, again with proper evidence.
If you say the universe is evidence of god, that is like someone else saying it is evidence of their gods, or me saying it is evidence of a natural processes and the laws of physics. That is not evidence.
What convincing evidence is there that the bible is absolutely correct?
If you were born in Saudi Arabia would you not be making similar claims about Allah, and demote Jesus to a prophet?
How do you know Jesus did miracles and was ressurected?
If he did, how do we know that he was an aspect of god, how do we know all the other claims are correct, how do we know his followers letters and memory and interpretations were correct after he died. Do you just assume it is correct? He could just as well been an alien. His followers could have been wrong and the message just for Jews and wrote down the new testament books to suit their assumptions.
How do we distinguish your assertions from those of other religions?
If you believe because of faith, you are entitled to your beliefs but you might start with " I believe,,,," because you believe it is true, but don't know for sure and have no way of demonstrating any of it is true.
Doesn't your point about atheists growing in communist China also apply to you growing up with Christianity?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Why risk bringing someone into this world when there is a risk they may not be saved and spend eternity suffering in the next life?
Peter Law 50+
Had my children before I got saved, but both my children are now saved. My daughter does not want children because of the moral state of the country.
You make a good point though, I guess it's down to the individual. Personally, I'd go for it.
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
What if they did not believe? Would you regret having them, believing they will suffer in hell for eternity?
I would have thought the risk of infinite eternal suffering is a bit worse than the current state of morality in British society. What is she scared of violence? Homosexuality? Sex out of marriage? Greed? It's all temporary. Of this world. The Christian afterlife is for eternity.
The term saved is interesting. Saved from the hell God made and will send some of us. What sort of deity sets up a universe where some of us need to be saved through faith and luck (where and when you were born) against the logic and reason we were given?
I'll try to stop harping on about this for a while. The Hell doctrine proves God is evil. The consequences if it were true are profound, but being human believers still manage to put it in a box and go on procreating.
Peter Law 50+
Hell isn't a subject that comes up much in Christian circles. In fact TED is about the only place it does; & that from Atheists of all folk. You are right of course; it must be a major blow to lose one's children like that. I don't know how to answer, I don't share your pessimism. I realise my life is in God's hands, I can only do that which is humanly possible, the rest is His problem.
My daughter's issue is with schools. She knows what they are like in London through her work & feels that Christian influence has gone completely. I guess this in part ties in with the hell issue; her offspring may well be at eternal risk.
:-)
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I personally don't see any place for many aspects of Christian influence in state run schools. Such as scripture classes, or chaplains.
I guess we might agree on some practical aspects in terms of class discipline, education outcomes etc.
John Dunbar 10+
Either way, I answer to myself I have a conscience that will debilitate me if I were to consistently ignore it. My conscience is connected to how I make others feel, hence I answer to myself and my fellow earth creatures.
Im not sure that as a theist you are answerable to anyone else, but yourself. You are answerable to your brain, which has built the construct of what it is you believe God to be.
I think what your asking is, do you become an atheist in order to behave in a hedonistic manner and have no guilt over your behavior?
My answer to this is absolutely not. As an Atheist, I can assure you that I have a conscience and wether I believe in God or not, my conscience doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The belief in God can make your conscience far to judgmental and punishing. Religion accomplished the feat of not only inducing guilt over behavior, but thoughts. It was an extension of the first government, a tool used by the ruling class to control the people.
Look at the areas of the world where religious extremism is practiced. Poverty and an all around lack of pleasure breed religious extremism. Religion allows for pleasure to be derived from a construct in the mind.
Atheism to me is a rejection of the countless number of religions that propose the same old feeling, as a solution, for the same old problem.
Comment deleted
John Dunbar 10+
Let me explain the development of a conscience this way. Dogs are not born with a conscience. They are not born with shame. Dogs must be reared properly in order to make them suitable for life with a human. This is also true with children. Too much criticism towards a child he/she develops an overly punishing conscience. Too little direction and instruction and the child develops a conscience that doesn't do its job in controlling certain primitive impulses. Proper conscience development relies on parental compassion and guidance. Your conscience is the identification with your parents and society as whole built into a mental construct that governs your behavior, its a product of societal evolution.
Now think of what God is supposed to be. He/she is the ideal citizen. God is a father figure who supposedly guides you towards a life of being truly moral. He never leaves your side, forgives you, but punishes you with guilt when you don't listen to him. The idea of God is a conscience that allows for an ideal societal life. The problem is that most of the religions that people follow are based on the idea of what a proper conscience was 2,000 years ago. This is filled with absurd beliefs towards women and other tribes.
So this is why i believe people have a conscience, its a product of a society, an evolutionary trait that allows for a society to serve the replication of life more efficiently.
To answer your second question, I know other people have a conscience, however this is not true for all. There are some rare cases where an individual has no conscience. This individual usually has brain damage or has suffered long term physical/psychological abuse.
In response to your third question about being just, I have to say compassion towards my fellow creatures is something that i subscribe to and i believe is necessary.
John Dunbar 10+
So yes belief in God does affect your conscience and it does so in a negative way by overdeveloping it and creating moral standards that are impossible to meet, then punishing you when they are not met.
To address your question about fundamentalism in America. Yes there is fundamentalism in America and if you look at the places where religion flourishes its almost always in areas where poor education and poverty run rampant. It almost never turns violent except in areas where there is a lack of pleasure. My statement was mainly addressing the pleasure that is received from believing you can change the world with your mind by praying(telepathy). this also works brilliantly for the ruling class. You have people trying to telepathically change their life vs actually changing it. You have the poor who don't have anything that brings the common man pleasure except their belief that if they stay moral and don't start a revolution based on economic inequality they will be rewarded. In ancient Egypt Pharaoh had to believe in you to be granted eternal life. Pharaoh was apparently sinister and knew by doing this he could work them into oblivion because they have been sold on the idea that there was paradise after death.
John Dunbar 10+
So i think what your saying is that belief or disbelief in God doesn't shape your character. I don't think this is so . I have friends who are theists who are very nice people who simply don't recognize what kind of cruelty there spreading by believing in God. If you question them, they constantly rationalize atrocities by stating we don't know Gods will. They also tend to harbor borderline anti gay and jewish sentiments. Now I know who these people are at their core, there good people, but in order for them to continue the life they have built they must believe harmful dogma. In many cases its the fear of abandonment by their family and peers that keeps them in a constant state of denial about so many of the obvious contradictions religion purports.
On the other hand there are people who use Atheism to rationalize selfish and abhorrent behavior. So there is some truth in your statement, but nothing makes a good person behave more irrationally than religion.
There is no dogma with atheism its simply a rejection of theism as a whole. By believing in religion some people help themselves, but at the same time they accept ridiculous claims and loose all intelligent critical thought in the process. At this point religion is standing in the way of progress to a better world for all. It's had its place, but we now have other tools for developing a better world.
John Dunbar 10+
Also your statement punishment is important, this is true to a degree, but its not quite that black and white. Punishment and forgiveness as preached in the bible is nothing short of abusive. Its a dictatorship that instills fear, that's how psychopaths control people.
In regards to your statement about modern religions that behave like pharaoh in ancient egypt,you know i believe we still have many religions like this. To say this is more to do with the persons logic has some truth, but if fundamentalists are an example of what behavior looks like when following the religion then it shows how absurd the religion is. You have over a billion muslims in the world, many of which are fundamentalist, violent, and brainwashed. Your trying to say this has less to do with religion than we think?
As I said there is a correlation to levels of religious extremism and poverty, but if you follow a religion where the prophet was a pedophile, teaching morals, how do you think your going to treat people? Is the treatment of women in the islamic world a product of religious brainwashing or is everyone in the middle east irrational? For you to dismiss religion as the culprit in these cases of disgusting traditions and behavior, is to be willingly ignorant.
"Theism offers redemption" sure it does and thats the problem, it preys on those who seek this. What is redemption? Atoning for your sins? Its reality about making peace with yourself why do you need God to do that?
John Dunbar 10+
To say belief is analogous to being a whole person is an absurd judgment and in no way, shape or form has any truth to it. This is like saying a child who no longer believes in santa claus isn't a fully developed child. I think you know that the opposite is true.
I could address your claims about Islam, but I can already see it would be completely useless.
Have a great day!
-Brian