BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Agnostic or Atheist

 
  

Page: 123(4)56789... 14

 
 
Char Aina
21:01 / 28.11.06
Does that mean that my Judaism (and that of my whole family) was founded on a conscious and intentional denial of Christianity?

why would it? i mean, i guess it could be, but you were raised in an environment with a default religious affiliation and you retained said affiliation.
 
 
some guy
21:03 / 28.11.06
Can you tell me the default religious affiliation for Los Angeles, please?
 
 
EvskiG
21:05 / 28.11.06
Or modern China? Or the former Soviet Union?
 
 
Char Aina
21:11 / 28.11.06
no, because there isnt one.
default religion for a person comes from so many different things. geographical location is only one factor, and of differing importance.

see ev's example.

There's no more obligation to build a case for this proposition than there's an obligation to build a case that angels can't dance on the head of a pin, or that colorless green ideas dream furiously.

if someone tells me that the evidence supports something i usually look for a case built of said evidence. if there is no evidence to support this theory i think it's a bit misleading to frame it like that.
i'd feel the same if you said "Evidence appears to support the proposition that there is no dream in the head of a colourless green idea", while admittedly being less interested in the debate.
 
 
some guy
21:19 / 28.11.06
no, because there isnt one.
default religion for a person comes from so many different things. geographical location is only one factor, and of differing importance.


How do we decide which religion is the "default" one and why should we assume it's of any relevance for an atheist?

if someone tells me that the evidence supports something i usually look for a case built of said evidence. if there is no evidence to support this theory i think it's a bit misleading to frame it like that.
i'd feel the same if you said "Evidence appears to support the proposition that there is no dream in the head of a colourless green idea", while admittedly being less interested in the debate.


Yet this precisely describes the view many atheists have of theistic propositions. There is no evidence to support theistic claims and thus "it's a bit misleading to frame [atheism] like that." Do you understand where I'm coming from here or are we confusing each other?
 
 
Char Aina
21:38 / 28.11.06
yeah.
i do understand what you are saying.
we are talking from different places, for sure.
i do agree with you in one sense.

dawkins is a fan of this way of thinking; atheism as a default is one of his staples.
i agree that you are born atheist in the sense that you have no concept of a theistic position at birth. this can be said of an awful lot of things at that age.
the child soon experiences religious ideas, though. if you don't, you are very much in the minority.
those ideas are either taken on board or rejected, based on all sorts of other factors.

it is the rejection of those ideas that allows one's atheism to continue.

perhaps growth is a better analogy than building.
 
 
some guy
21:56 / 28.11.06
it is the rejection of those ideas that allows one's atheism to continue

I think you've got the relationship back to front here. You very much seem to be framing atheism in theistic terms here, or at least giving theism a weight and importance that atheists simply aren't going to recognize. I don't come across Islam and actively deny it. I come across Islam and consider it an irrelevancy unless presented with compelling evidence on behalf of its literal truth. You are in effect denying atheists "ownership" over their atheism in a sense by insisting on a relationship with a dominant theism that must somehow inform and have relevance to the atheistic state.

saying you have seen no proof for divinity is one thing, but stating categorically that there could be no such thing as divinity is another

There may well be dancing purple space whales that conveniently hide all trace of themselves one nanosecond before we could detect them. That doesn't make entertaining the possibility something seriously worth considering. People who lack belief in dancing purple space whales are probably going to lack that belief whether presented with the non-evidential claim or not.
 
 
Char Aina
22:10 / 28.11.06
People who lack belief in dancing purple space whales are probably going to lack that belief whether presented with the non-evidential claim or not.

stating categorically that there could be no such thing isnt the same thing as not believing in something.
 
 
some guy
22:31 / 28.11.06
stating categorically that there could be no such thing isnt the same thing as not believing in something.

Atheism is not a categorical statement that there could be no such thing as divinity.
 
 
Unconditional Love
09:35 / 29.11.06
What constitutes evidence? My experience? Something that fits into theoretical abstractions? Is evidence a static phenomena, or is it temporal, what exactly is this quantifiable substance called evidence, evidence is then a materialistic substance or is it the reference point for conceptual abstraction to engage with, ie an exchange between consciousness and phenomena.

Evidence doesnt really exsist as something does it, its an interaction between consciousness and phenomena that changes over time, its all a best guess thats continually changing, were all making it up, there are the phenomena and how we relate to them and thats it, the system of abstraction defines the relationship, god exsists to an a theist and not to an atheist, you see the world as you believe it to be by the concepts you employ to define it. Its as real as the word real is. And there in lies the trick, dont believe anything dont think anything experience it and become it.

Whatever it is.
 
 
Quantum
10:12 / 29.11.06
re: the nephew In what way does the term "atheist" not describe him?

I personally wouldn't describe him as an atheist, or a theist (agnostic at a push). Until someone has considered the existence of a god or gods, and come to believe in them or not, it seems silly to describe them in those terms, like saying I am an a-flyingpurplespacewhaleist. I don't think there is a default position (maybe agnostic in the sense of 'I don't know') otherwise you can say gestated foetuses are atheists because they don't believe in god. The positions are derived from the debate, surely, not before.
 
 
Evil Scientist
10:53 / 29.11.06
Evidence doesnt really exsist as something does it, its an interaction between consciousness and phenomena that changes over time, its all a best guess thats continually changing, were all making it up, there are the phenomena and how we relate to them and thats it, the system of abstraction defines the relationship, god exsists to an a theist and not to an atheist, you see the world as you believe it to be by the concepts you employ to define it. Its as real as the word real is. And there in lies the trick, dont believe anything dont think anything experience it and become it.

That's a fairly common argument when the subject of evidence, and what constitutes evidence of God, is brought up. However it doesn't hold up. Whilst the concept of God may well be as real as the concept of, for instance, cheese to someone, it doesn't automatically follow that, because that concept exists, there is a separate and distinct entity that embodies that concept.

It isn't as real as the world is. A concept exists in the mind. Even if we accept the theory that nothing is real except our own mind then we have to accept that, for some reason, our (my) mind has seen fit to impose certain physical laws over the illusory world about us. I can conceptualise sticking my hand in a blast furnace and pulling it out unharmed, I can believe it with all my heart, but in the "real world" when I stick my right hand in a blast furnace I'll be learning to write left-handed the following day.
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:19 / 29.11.06
Agreed experience creates validation, but thats not my point in making that point.

Science like god is a concept, evidence like god is a concept, they are conceptual tools, science like religous belief makes use of conceptual tools to examine the environment, both mistake there concepts for the interaction between consciousness and phenomena, neither are correct, but only stand as the best guess according to the philosophies they are both founded upon.

Which in my opinion is the place to look for the assumptions that both institutional and non institutionalised bodies make about there own consciousness and there environments.

Then the very value of philosophy has to be examined, and human measurement, thought systems themselves as being in anyway accurate measurements of consciousness and its interaction with phenomena.

I am in no way convinced by any of it, except my own experience, which is founded upon a state of being, an integration of phenomena and consciousness, rather than theories and presuppositions about the nature of any of it.

My work with a given god works because i experience a working process and an integration into the principle of that god. My actions become merged with the process of devotion and magical practice, there isnt a seperation.

If i create seperation by clinging to the concepts in consciousness themselves rather than the experience of consciousness as it is manifested by the processes i engage with i will stop my involvement in my ritual.

One m.o is useful for creating distance the other for creating closeness and integration. pushing either above the other creates a discordance in my own experience.

both systems tend to imo aim at highlighting the value of consciousness/spirit over and above the whole experience, as if a disassociation can occur between object and subject, i would higlight the value of fusing object and subject rather than higlighting either as a more desirable position. The very notion of seperation is something that is taught, systems that try to catagorise phenomena need to create seperation, both religous and scientific.
 
 
Quantum
12:35 / 29.11.06
Then the very value of philosophy has to be examined, and human measurement, thought systems themselves as being in anyway accurate measurements of consciousness and its interaction with phenomena.

I'm a bit confused by this bit. The thought systems are in our heads, made of our thoughts, the same heads that experience phenomena. If a thought system doesn't match my interaction with phenomena I'd tend not to allow it any veracity. The thought systems are necessarily based on our experience with phenomena. Where does measurement come into it?
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:50 / 29.11.06
Measurement is the process of assembling thoughts through the movement of consciousness to create bodies of thought, its an action that takes place in consciousness and is the entrance and exit point to phenomena and consciousness that is experience containing but not defined by thought.
 
 
Unconditional Love
13:00 / 29.11.06
The measurements made are conditional based on a variety of conditions that exsist within consciousness and the phenomena that are involved in the interaction, those conditions are temporal in both states, the concepts act as communication between them and are again conditional to information held in consciousness and the provocation of phenomena that surround a person at the time of conception.

Fixed bodies of knowledge suffer from the illusion of consistency often created through conformity or majority.

If a thousand dogs bark up at the same tree it dosent nessecarily mean there is anything up there, and they may all well totter off to shag somebodies leg within the next few minutes.
 
 
Quantum
13:20 / 29.11.06
Measurement is the process of assembling thoughts through the movement of consciousness to create bodies of thought,

So not the comparison of something with another thing? I'm thinking of comparing the distance I've walked with a mile, or the weight of something compared to the standard gram. One property of measurements is that they are usually quantifiable, not something that springs to mind when considering philosophical theories or positions on the existence of God. Perhaps we just have a different conception of the word.
 
 
Evil Scientist
14:00 / 29.11.06
Fixed bodies of knowledge suffer from the illusion of consistency often created through conformity or majority.

What would your alternative be? The advantage of a fixed body of knowledge is that people can take advantage of the studies of others. I'd argue that the scientific methodology allows for more flexibility to new discoveries than religion does (although it can be flexible to a lesser degree).


If a thousand dogs bark up at the same tree it dosent nessecarily mean there is anything up there, and they may all well totter off to shag somebodies leg within the next few minutes.

Although it doesn't mean we shouldn't look at the reasons why a thousand dogs would similtaneously bark at the same tree.

Just because one dog sits in the corner licking it's ass it doesn't mean that it knows something the other dogs don't.
 
 
some guy
14:24 / 29.11.06
The positions are derived from the debate, surely, not before.

Atheism isn't a position. It's simply the lack of theistic faith. One can build positions around that central point, including "denial" and rest of it. I think we're coming up against the tendency to frame atheism from a theistic vantage point again. I don't see how we can possibly say "atheist" doesn't describe my nephew unless we're creating a new definition that means something beyond "lacking belief in divinity." In which case I'd like a term for that, please.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:12 / 29.11.06
Curious Coincidence, which sits better in this thread than in the 'Coincidences' thread.

Last night, a friend of mine, who is travelling to the Amazon for a year or so, loaned me a whole load of his books beofre he leaves. The last book he gave me, which he hadn't yet read, he handed over and said, "Read this. It's supposed to be excellent"

On the way home, I flicked it open, and it opened to this chapter, on this page:

(If I may liberally reproduce from it here)

From "The Riddle of This World"

"Western Metaphysics and Yoga"

European metaphysical thought - even in those thinkers who try to prove or explain the the existence and nature of God or the Absolute - does not in its method or result go beyond the intellect. But the intellect is incapable of knowing the supreme Truth. it can only range about seeking for Truth, and catching fragmentary representations of it, not the thing itself, and trying to piece them together. Mind cannot arrive at Truth; it can only make some constructed figure that tries to represent it or a combination of figures.

At the end of European thoughbt, therefore, there must always be Agnosticism, declared or implicit. Intellect, if it goes sincerely to its own end, has to return and give this report: "I cannot know; there is, or at least seems to me that there may be or even must be Something beyond, some ultimate Reality, but about its truth I can only specualte; it is either unknowable or cannot be known by me". Or, if it has received some light on on the way from what is beyond it, it can say too: "There is perhaps a consciousness beyond Mind, for I seemt o catch glimpses of it and even to get intimations from it. If that is in touch with the Beyond, or if it is itself the consciousness of the Beyond and you can find some way to reach it, then this Something can be known, but not otherwise."

Any seeking of the Supreme Truth through intellect alone must end either in Agnosticism of this kind, or else in some intellectual system or mind constructed formula. There have been hundreds of these systems and formulas and there can be hundreds more, but none can be definitive. Each may have its value for mind, and different systems with their own contrary conclusions can have an equal appeal to intelligences of equal power and competence. All this labour of speculation has its utility in training the human mind and helping to keep before it the idea of Something beyond and Ultimate towards which it must turn. But the intellectual reason can only point vaguely or feel gropingly towards it or try to indicate partial or even conflicting aspects of its manifestation here; it cannot enter into and know it. As long as we remain in the domain of the intellect only, an impartial pondering over all that has been thought and sought after,...of all the possible ideas, and the formation of this or that philosphical belief, opinion, or conclusion is all that can be done....

...But any conclusion so reached would only be speculative; it would have no spiritual value; it would not give the decisive spiritual experience or the spiritual certitude for which the soul is seeking. If the intellect is our highest possible instrument, and there is no other means of arriving at supraphysical Truth, then a wise and large Agnosticism must be our ultimate attitude. Things in manifestation may be known to some degree, but the Supreme and all that lies beyond Mind must remain forever unknowable.

It is only if there is a greater consciousness beyond Mind and that Consciousness is accessible to us that we can know and enter into the ultimate Reality. Intellectual specualtion, logical reasoning as to whether there is or is not such a greater consciousness cannot carry us very far. What we need is a a way to get the experienceof it, to reach it, to enter it, to live in it.. (italics mine) If we can get that, intellectual specualtion and reasoning must fall into a very secondary place....Philosophy, intellectual expression of the Truth may remain, but mainly as a means of expressing this greater discovery and as much of its contents as can at all be expressend in mental terms to those who still live in the mental intelligence.

...In the East, especially in India, the metaphysical thinkers have tried, as in the West, to determine the nature of highest Truth by the intellect. But, in the first place, they have not given mental thinking the supremem rank as an instrument of discovery of the Truth, but only a seecondary status. The first rank has always been given to spiritual intuition and illumination in the Spiritual Experience. an intellectual conclusion that contradicts this Supreme authority is held invalid. Secondly, each philosp[hy has armed itself with a practical way of reaching the Supreme state of consciousness, so that when one begins with Thought, the aim is to arrive at a cos=nsciousness beyond mental thinking...

...Western thought has ceased to be dynamic...it has sought after a theory of things, not after Realisation...it bacame intellecftual specualtion only without any practical ways and means for the attainment of the Truth by sprirtual experiment, spiritual discovery, a spiritual transformation...It is the spiritual way, the road that leads beyond intellectual levels, the passage from the outer being to the inmost Self, which has been lost by the over-intellectuality of European mind...

...It is not by "thinking out" the entire reality, but by a change of consciousness that one can pass from the ignorance to the Knowledge - the Knowledge by which we become what we know. To pass from the external to a direct and intimate inner consciousness; to widen consciousness out of the limits of the ego and the body; to heighten it by an inner will and aspiration and opening to the Light till it passes in its ascent beyond Mind; to bring down a descent of the supramental Divine through self-giving and surrender with a consequent transformation of mind, life and body - this is the integral way to Truth. It is this that we call the Truth here, and aim at in our Yoga.

*****

There is more, a fantastic following chapter called "The Agnostic and the Vedantic Unknowable" for those who mightl ike to read it I'll post it up later.

For Ev-G, I can only extend my sympathies that such a dedicated life of study and discipline has not lead to any kind of transformation as described. I stumbled across a shamanic discipline not 3 years ago, which, combined with Yoga and Fasting, has completely exploded my previous self and lead me to a profound and life-changing encounter with the Divine, which has and continues to inform every aspect of how I now live in this world.

So, when you point out, upthread, that what I'm saying is "If you'd had the experiences I've had...", well, I don't see me denying that anywhere in this thread. That's exactly what I'm saying...
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:17 / 29.11.06
Or, rather, not quite that...the experiences which you need are the ones that bring about the shift in consciousness, not the experiences I've had...(they were the ones I needed...)
 
 
Unconditional Love
15:29 / 29.11.06
None of it changes the temporality of phenomena and consciousness, todays sunshine is not yesterdays, todays mind is not tommorrows, the illusion of continuity between conditions is kept for the sake of consistency, the mind creates the interactions and relationships between the points of self and relationship to other.

Habits, rituals, experiments, methods keep the idea of continuity alive as much as symbol structures, signifiers etc, the delusion is maintained by prescribing fixed values ttempts to order informationto conscious structures, numbers are the perfect example of this process.

I have no alternatives, i offer none, but from my understanding i see the futility of ascribing constants and continuity to the world with which i engage, time changes everything, the center cannot hold.
 
 
Unconditional Love
15:37 / 29.11.06
rot/Mine tastes nicer than yours/rot
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:59 / 29.11.06
The delusion of what, Yah?

This is key, I'd say.
 
 
some guy
16:04 / 29.11.06
from my understanding i see the futility of ascribing constants and continuity to the world with which i engage

Not to be facetious, but do you ascribe a constant and continuity with regard to stepping off a cliff?
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:08 / 29.11.06
I will try an example, If i decided to become a scientist, got the education, worked in a lab, surrounded myself with the objects of my study, i could well identify as a scientist.

if i joined a priesthood, worked in a religous building, gave religous ceremonies etc i could well identify as a priest for example.

Is it the signifiers that i have collected that make me either a priest or a scientist, is it the continuity in my behaviour, is it the environments that i ascribe too interact with, or is it social definition from other sources.

Do those measurements about self give identity to a person, or is there something beyond that in the experience of being a priest or scientist, a totality that those significators are the appearences of, why would i have made those particular choices, is there something beyond the material appearences that leads one to choose priest and another scientist, can we all be a scientists, can we all be priests, or are we driven by a deeper need to do things other than the physical measurements and emotional satisfaction.

If so, what is that need or desire, what motivates, what drives the scientist on to argue for atheism, the priest for theism. I think scientists like priests are driven by deeper urges than either science or religion can explain, i perhaps subscribe to the idea that we never will know why, that all our best judgements will remain at best guesses, but sometimes we can experience the reality behind desires.
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:09 / 29.11.06
To answer delusion with delusion?
 
 
Unconditional Love
16:13 / 29.11.06
All cliffs are different heights who cares, there are some i would happily step off of depending on whats below, ill step off an imaginary cliff any day of the week as well.

No language can ever adequately describe reality 100%
 
 
EvskiG
16:27 / 29.11.06
For Ev-G, I can only extend my sympathies that such a dedicated life of study and discipline has not lead to any kind of transformation as described. I stumbled across a shamanic discipline not 3 years ago, which, combined with Yoga and Fasting, has completely exploded my previous self and lead me to a profound and life-changing encounter with the Divine, which has and continues to inform every aspect of how I now live in this world.

Huh?

I'm happy and healthy, and I've had (and continue to have) plenty of profound and life-changing experiences -- many of which easily could be described as "mystical."

I just don't believe in God, and I don't believe that those experiences were caused by a god.
 
 
some guy
16:37 / 29.11.06
there are some i would happily step off of depending on whats below

So you do in fact ascribe constants and continuity to aspects of reality. Why can we not then use those to explore and test other observations without getting into the muddy waters of subjectivity?
 
 
some guy
16:39 / 29.11.06
I'm happy and healthy, and I've had (and continue to have) plenty of profound and life-changing experiences -- many of which easily could be described as "mystical."

I just don't believe in God, and I don't believe that those experiences were caused by a god.


This is precisely why subjective experiences never work in furthering discussions of this nature.
 
 
EvskiG
16:44 / 29.11.06
Just to follow up, here's Crowley (from Book 4, Part I) on the subject of mystical experiences which many people attribute to a deity or deities:

Of the great teachers we have mentioned Christ is silent; the other[s] . . . tell us something; some more, some less.

Buddha goes into details too elaborate to enter upon in this place; but the gist of it is that in one way or another he got hold of the secret force of the World and mastered it.

Of St. Paul's experiences, we have nothing but a casual illusion to his having been "caught up into Heaven, and seen and heard things of which it was not lawful to speak."

Mohammed speaks crudely of his having been "visited by the Angel Gabriel," who communicated things from "God."

Moses says that he "beheld God."

Diverse as these statements are at first sight, all agree in announcing an experience of the class which fifty years ago would have been called supernatural, to-day may be called spiritual, and fifty years hence will have a proper name based on an understanding of the phenomenon which occurred.

. . . .

[S]omething happens whose nature may form the subject of a further discussion later on. For the moment let it suffice to say that . . . consciousness of the Ego and the non-Ego, the seer and the thing seen, the knower and the thing known, is blotted out.

There is usually an intense light, an intense sound, and a feeling of such overwhelming bliss that the resources of language have been exhausted again and again in the attempt to describe it.

It is an absolute knock-out blow to the mind. It is so vivid and tremendous that those who experience it are in the gravest danger of losing all sense of proportion.

By its light all other events of life are as darkness. Owing to this, people have utterly failed to analyse it or to estimate it. They are accurate enough in saying that, compared with this, all human life is absolutely dross; but they go further, and go wrong. They argue that "since this is that which transcends the terrestrial, it must be celestial." One of the tendencies in their minds has been the hope of a heaven such as their parents and teachers have described, or such as they have themselves pictured; and, without the slightest grounds for saying so, they make the assumption "This is That."

. . . .

We do not believe in any supernatural explanations, but insist that this source may be reached by the following out of definite rules, the degree of success depending upon the capacity of the seeker, and not upon the favour of any Divine Being. We assert that the critical phenomenon which determines success is an occurrence in the brain characterized essentially by the uniting of subject and object. We propose to discuss this phenomenon, analyse its nature, determine accurately the physical, mental and moral conditions which are favourable to it, to ascertain its cause, and thus to produce it in ourselves, so that we may adequately study its effects.
 
 
Char Aina
16:53 / 29.11.06
you'd be great tour guide.
 
 
Char Aina
16:57 / 29.11.06
sorry, that was in response to this.
 
 
Char Aina
17:18 / 29.11.06
For Ev-G, I can only extend my sympathies that such a dedicated life of study and discipline has not lead to any kind of transformation as described. I stumbled across a shamanic discipline not 3 years ago, which, combined with Yoga and Fasting, has completely exploded my previous self and lead me to a profound and life-changing encounter with the Divine, which has and continues to inform every aspect of how I now live in this world.

oh, such a shame your's is rubbish.
mine's simply marvellous.

y'know, it sounds just as wank coming out of your mouth as it does that pillock with the flash car or that fundie with hir saving light.
 
  

Page: 123(4)56789... 14

 
  
Add Your Reply