Atheism:believe in no God or disbelieve in God

They don't? Why not? I only ever said I have no idea why they were the way they were. But looking for further explanations is always valid. And fun. Take the higgs boson. If discovered, it would explain why matter has mass. That's pretty fuckin' cool in my opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure it is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I mean you don't need any explanation for why there is an organisation that exists, as it does, in a meaningful way at all levels.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have to agree. Although it's interesting to contemplate the backtrack of causality and origin.

If the higgs gives matter mass, than what gives the higgs its properties, etc?

Sort of like "If god exists, what (or who) created god?"

I tend to think that there is a fundamental context that just always was and that it's just hard for us humans to concieve of something without a beginning or end that has no precursor or deeper source.

Unless you're a theist maybe?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So I guess you won't be looking for any precursors or deeper explanations for fundamental contexts anytime soon. Seeing as you're not a theist. :shrug:

 

Let's just say I won't be losing any sleep over it.

 

argument from insomnia.

Thats a good one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Would that be argumentum ad insomnium ?

:bravo:

 

So are you definitely agreeing with that description of your God and the others at issue here - that's the kind of God you're talking about, all agreed ? (because otherwise you would be trolling) Then the question is answerable: Any empirical consequences of the existence of a magical being identified as a God by anybody. Fossils of rabbit skeletons in Precambrian rock, is I think the standard example for the Muslim or Christian Creationist'[s God. Spontaneous generation of an amoeba subsequent to prayer, would be another example good for other Christian or Muslim god concepts. There are many possibilities for empirical consequences of a magical being, varying somewhat with the exact style of magic and being proposed, and for each of them an example of those consequences would suffice.

How about a category of beliefs - dismissed on rational grounds as a member of a category of beliefs ? Like perpetual motion machines. There's a lot of different kinds, all bogus for various reasons - or so I think. I'm aperpetuistic, in my philosophy of machinery.

In a society full of agressive theists, that is so by circumstance. But as you continue:

So now you are attributing a real caring, a necessarily deep commitment in faith, to the proposition that there is no God. That is not how I feel in the matter, and I'm sure there are many others like me.

If there were no dramatically and intrusively important theistic religions in my immediate neighborhood and involved in my concerns, the postulate of a Deity would just be an entertaining shorcut or heuristic for dealing with certain complex features of the world - like the attribution of personality to a sailboat. And when I claimed to not really believe in the actual personhood of sailboats, despite the fact that I use and follow and appreciate the idea, there would be the question of what evidence I have that sailboats have no personhood - or, as here, what kind of evidence would convince me that some sailboat somewhere owned by somebody genuinely had a personality. And I would reply: what boat, where, what kind of "personality", etc.

Some people do not require a coordination of the whole universe, to supply meaning for their lives. Some even believe that they, themselves, bring reasoning aspects and other human attributes to the universe - a powerful support for the attribution of meaning to a life, no?

In point of fact, most of the people who have found such things have had to defy and reject their local theism in the process - so common this pattern, that an initial rejection of the local theism has become a famously common attribute of the curious and exploratory, in the realm of fundamental contexts and deeper explanations.

Any idea why that pattern has held, now, for hundreds of years ?

 

Sure it can be mathematically modelled, derived into formula, be used to predict extraplolated events. A work of observing the world system. And we human then simulate or adopt the system into our life supporting equipment / technology. Are we then, designing our life support system, by adopting from some "big coincidence", which was not designed?

 

Perhaps you're confusing all of us as being from the same patterns. :shrug:

I don't recall anyone asking me about my description of God before they decided they were atheist.

 

My left hemisphere believes in God, my right hemisphere is atheist.

 

This is possible. A simple way to describe this is that a "self-fulfilling prophecy" is taking place.

 

Doesn't a "self-fulfilling prophecy", at the end of the road, direct us toward "God"? (God in either terms, as in "natural law / coincidence", or Creator).

 

Didn't know that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thinking, willing and feeling - because it is conscious?

That would be annihilationism, identifying with the aggregates and beliving there is nothing but the aggregates. In Buddhism, this is wrong view.

Agreed with the part in bold.
This is one of the main reasons why I have always been put off by the requests Christians make - because even going by the most idealistic calculation, I suppose it would take me at least a few lifteimes of most intense and professionally supervised and supported study and practice to answer the questions and requests they put to me - yet they wanted answers within a week or so. Even to just retrain the habit of brushing my teeth in a new way (not so firmly) has been taking months with little success. To say nothing of retraining mental habits.

No? My first reaction was to think that renunciation would be forever - hence my repulsion toward it.

One of the first images of heaven that I can remember appearing in my mind was that somewhere up in the clouds, a man is kneeling on one knee (not both), bowing his head, and God chides him. And so for all eternity. The kneeling on one knee instead of both suggests that the man wasn't completely subdued, was still considered of some worth. Those in eternal hell of course kneel on both knees - while God chides them.

It seems to me that agnosticism is about things never going past being mere mental concepts. This is one of the reasons why the agnostic stance (however it arose) is so troublesome.

I can only take this on faith, of course. I don't have a relization to match it.

 

Greenberg

it might be easier to understand it as being consciousness and at the moment our consciousness is identifying with matter - hence we eperience life not as sat cit ananda but as temporary, full of ignorance and subject to misery

Even though what goes down in buddhism is quite varied these days, I would have thought that the self is seen as the final stumbling block of illusion in buddhism?

“

lol

there may be certain things one does not do eternally in unconditioned existence, but one doesn't do them due to experiencing a higher taste.

BG 2.59 The embodied soul may be restricted from sense enjoyment, though the taste for sense objects remains. But, ceasing such engagements by experiencing a higher taste, he is fixed in consciousness.

In other words material life is characterized by issues of renunciation (because we are habitually attracted to the wrong things) and spiritual life is characterized by attraction (because we are spontaneously attracted to what is actually beneficial) .... and of course being mixed up somewhere between the two means one has to be especially careful

I must admit, that is a strange notion of eternal life - in short, chastisement is what we face in the material world

I agree
in fact I think modern education cultivates in one the capacity to entertain several contrary views without ever coming to the platform of practical application

thats natural - theory without practice remains theory

 

This is supposed to be a thread on athiest beliefs!

These guys:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yay! Excellent!

 

One thing that strikes me as strange about the Buddha is that even after Enlightenment, he would think, feel and will. Now, as far as Buddhism goes and the teachings on the aggregates, how could that be ...

The issue of self is a stumbling block between Buddhist traditions, for starters.
Classical Theravada holds that there is no self ever in anything, no such thing as "soul" (I admit I forgot how they defend against charges of annihilationism).
Then some Mahayana and Vajrayana schools speak of "Buddha nature" which might be an equivalent to the notion of "soul" to some extent (in that it is eternal, uncreated, independent).
And then there is Early Theravada keeping to the Suttas of the Pali Canon that holds that the Buddha never said whether there is a self or whether there is no self per se, only that he specified some instances that are not the self even though we commonly think they are (on identifying with the aggregates). Personally, I think this variant of Buddhism navigates around the issue of self best, in a very practical and doable manner.
There is an undercurrent interest in Early Theravada, but you won't find many of those people on the internet. Apparently, they know to have better things to do, or more efficiently than to post much in online forums.

To me, Buddhism (the Early Theravada) is a kind of desperate solution to a desperate situation, an answer for what to do when nothing else seems to do. This is why it doesn't have much a top-down approach, much over-arching and in-depth philosophy, but is something that a scattered and confused mind can do without feeling too overwhelmed and too out of its own depth. Breathing meditation, metta meditation, practising the Four Sublime Attitudes ... - little things that help bring some calm and clarity but which don't overwhelm one with things one doesn't understand or committments one isn't ready or willing to make.

Well, it's true.

There is something similar in Buddhism -

I think so too. I think such "open-mindedness" is pernicious; additionally, to make it all worse, they suggest that one come to one's own "opinions" - how this is tobe done, is taboo, in my experience. Normally, we were told to "think". This is too general, of course.

 

In effect, I am an atheist.

 

That's fairly disengenuous of you. You know full well what the implication of "practical application" means for any subject. And it doesen't apply to the subjective (and fuck you if you say one more word about the definition of that word -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) which is what your "practical" application results in.