Thanks for getting this ball rolling - one more thing I want to add, is a response to the challenge, "How do I know that my world view is correct?"
Simple answer, I don't. However, I base my conclusions on my own experience. So far, the path I have chosen, has rewarded me incomprehensibly in terms of inner fulfillment and outer success. I consider both areas an excellent mirror of what is, and is not, working for me. On that basis, I verify my path, the things I express, and the values that I hold, day by day. The consistency with which I express my ideas, is simply based on repeated experience, vs. belief. It may look like the same thing when expressed, but it isn't. No spider webs in my head.:-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Hi Curtis, I did not say anything about beliefs, or use that word in my > response. If atheism is merely an absence of the *belief* in God, that is a > very positive thing. God is an ongoing journey, not a being described with > static values, that are then pitted against us, by comparison. > > God is life, and love and infinity and everything else. All a coherent > expression of universal compassion. > > This is all off the cuff - I have no beliefs about God, but rather describe > God in the moment, as He and She is experienced. > > Any discussion on the basis of this belief, or that belief, is nonsense. Who > cares? Experience is the only thing worth discussing. Other than that, all > one does is make a case for a static thought, or as we so charmingly call it, > a belief. Beliefs are for dead people. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether > > > or not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. > > > > This is a common misconception about atheism. It has to do with people's > > difficulty in understanding that atheism is not a positive belief, but is > > the absence of belief. So people try to fit it into their own formula of > > belief systems by saying "atheists believe that there is no God." The > > nuances between the positions have more to do with how equivocally they > > state their opinions. > > > > For an atheist, all beliefs in the many Gods are equivalent to how society > > views the mythologies of the Greek Gods for example. I don't believe that > > it increases the probability that the God Zeus exists because a bunch of > > people made up stories about him. > > > > And that skepticism extends to people's subjective reports of experiencing > > "God". > > > > So an atheist more confidently states that there is no good reason for > > believing in Zeus, where an agnostic might make the point that we can't > > know such things with such confidence. It is more a nuance of emphasis > > rather than content. > > > > But in neither case is it stated that one holds the position for good solid > > reasons, that there could not be a God that has not been yet described by > > people so far. All we know is that so far people's reasons are lacking in > > epistemological merit. A standard that people are curiously eager to apply > > when dealing with other people's versions of the God belief, but are unable > > to apply to themselves. > > > > > > < I am referring to atheists, not agnostics. > > > > > > > And again, I correct your notion about what atheism is about. > > > > > > > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet > > > advanced to adulthood. > > > > Condescending analogy aside, it is unlikely that many children have the > > philosophical background necessary to understand the epistemological issues > > atheists have with theist's claims. The problem of lack of reliability of > > subjective knowledge and experience seems to be hard for many adults to > > grasp. > > > > > > > > By this I mean, atheists do not provide themselves with enough > > > information on this, they are childish in their insistence that there is > > > no God, based on a lack of experience.> > > > > It would be hard for me to accept that you are in a position to evaluate > > the subjective experiences of people who, like myself, have had a lot of > > exposure to programs designed to shift your subjective experience. In fact > > this exposes the crux of the issue: > > > > How can you say with certainty that a Moonie's subjective experience of the > > divinity of the late Rev. is categorically less reliable than your own, > > once you have given your own subjective experience the epistemological > > position of being reliable? How can you distinguish your subjective > > confidence from theirs? Or anyone else, including mine? You are assuming > > a superiority of your experience that is not warranted philosophically. > > > > > > > > A lot of confusion arises, regarding our picture of God. I do not see > > > some vengeful prick in the clouds, who rewards or condemns me, according > > > to interpreted moral values. > > > > > I thought we had dispensed with the straw man? Agreed, even thoughtful > > theists reject this view of God. It is not the version of God that would > > be most interesting for an atheist to challenge. However, societally, this > > version is highly relevant to a voting public who believes that they are > > able to discern his will and POV on gay people for example.(Spoiler alert, > > he is against them having the same civil protection as straight people > > couples from this POV.) > > > > > > > > What I do recognize is an essential element within you, me and everybody, > > > and everything, that is both impersonal and universally compassionate.> > > > > I don't doubt that those words have meaning for you but it doesn't resonate > > with me. You kind of have a mix-up with the juxtaposition of "impersonal" > > and "universally compassionate" for my way of understanding those words > > meaningfully. Universal compassion seems to include babies being born with > > no eyes sometimes, so the usefulness of the term seems diluted. Universal > > compassion seems like very weak Red Bull after all the ice has melted. > > > > > > > > We are not alone. We are this element's progeny.> > > > > I don't know what you are basing this assertion on but I haven't heard an > > argument yet that impressed me. You are welcome to try but just asserting > > it doesn't help. > > > > < The same ability that allows us to feel closeness to ourselves and > > another, is this same essential element, expressed personally. > > > > > I can follow the philosophy but don't buy the necessity for this additional > > universal thing. It is enough for me that we do in fact feel close to > > ourselves in a reflective state of self-consciousness and are close to > > other social primates within our very tiny groups by out natures. It is > > obviously not a quality that effectively transcends tribal groups too well > > so far in man's history, Woodstock notwithstanding. > > > > > > > > To wonder about the existence of God, I can accept. However, both an ego > > > bound denial of God, and an ego bound acceptance of God sanctified > > > through religion, seem childish to me. Kind of mentally retarded, > > > actually. > > > > For me the mystery is how uncorrelated these beliefs seem to a person's > > intelligence. Denying that man has proposed any good reasons for believing > > in any of the Gods so far is, for me, just a clear understanding of > > epistemology and its understanding of the limits of human knowledge and our > > propensity to believe things for bad reasons. Denying that people have > > presented good reasons is no more ego bound than understanding that it is > > unlikely that the Moonies are right. > > > > I would be interested to hear if you have formulated an understanding of > > why you should be more confident of the knowledge you have gained > > subjectively on such matters from other equally enthusiastically confident > > people asserting different things. How can you distinguish your confidence > > from, for example, a Christian who has "experienced" the living presence of > > Jesus Christ in their being "born again". How can you be certain that they > > are definitely wrong when they assert that this surety also gives them > > absolute certainty that the formulation of divinity you are proposing, > > means that you have missed the "experience" of Jesus as your personal > > savior, and therefor you are dammed by your association with the impersonal > > Satanic God of the Hindus? > > > > I propose that they are over-relying on the robustness of their subjective > > experience as an indicator of its epistemological solidity, and that this > > tendency is present in all of us. > > > > We are very mentally lazy when it comes to our own notions. It is a > > built-in cognitive vulnerability and it shows up in your subjectively based > > claims about your preferred version of the "God" idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Favorite topic: how non-atheists misunderstand or misstate the > > > > philosophical position of most atheists. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up > > > > > with a *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. > > > > > > > > Too broad. Most adults, atheists or theists have evolved their > > > > perspective on the religious beliefs they were brought up with as > > > > children. I had already rejected the Catholic version of God while > > > > still being an enthusiastic theist in the movement. So this is not > > > > something only atheists do and is not relevant to their philosophical > > > > position. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. > > > > > > > > Here you betray your own emotional bias against atheists. The > > > > "strutting about" is an overplayed fantasy projection on people with > > > > different beliefs than you hold. Atheists may just be as committed to > > > > their own world view as you are of your own. So their expressing it > > > > may be no more "strutting about" than your own descriptions of your > > > > beliefs. > > > > > > > > The second sentence is the reason I was compelled to write. I can't > > > > imagine how many times I have tried to correct this bizarre > > > > misstatement of the atheist's philosophical position here. It is a > > > > straw man and a pernicious one. Robin played wack-a-mole with me using > > > > this fallacious position for months. But I believe that correcting it > > > > again on this thread is my divinely appointed duty, so I will press the > > > > same keys again. > > > > > > > > Atheists do NOT proclaim "no existence of God". Atheists don't know if > > > > there is a God, and believe that neither do theists. What they reject > > > > are the reasons theists propose that their beliefs have substance. > > > > Curiously these same reasons are rejected between the different > > > > categories of theists for the same reasons atheists reject them. For > > > > example it is almost universally held that the Moonies reasons for > > > > believing that Sun Yung was God on earth are not good ones by all > > > > non-Moonies. You don't buy their reasons for believing he was God on > > > > earth do you? But to a Moonie all you would have to do is open > > > > yourself to his reality and you could believe as they do. > > > > > > > > The issue you have with atheists is that they also don't buy your own > > > > proposed reasons for your belief which you reveal below. > > > > > > > > > > > > < All they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they > > > > would rediscover God with a vengeance. > > > > > > > > > > > > Here you express your own confidence in subjective mystical experience > > > > as a basis of knowledge. Most atheists don't share this confidence. > > > > It seems more likely to atheists that people really suck at being able > > > > to evaluate the meaning of profound ineffable subjective experience, > > > > and are unduly shaped by whatever theology they buy into for their > > > > interpretation. Since perception is always constructed internally by > > > > conception beyond our conscious minds, atheists believe that this > > > > confidence is unfounded. And if you examine your rejection of the > > > > mystical "reality" experienced by Moonies of his divinity, you might > > > > understand why your own subjective confidence carries so little weight > > > > outside your own skull. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet > > > > > advanced to adulthood. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The people who do not believe as you do, have poopy pants? Duly noted. > > > > I don't feel the need to return a similar insult toward theists > > > > because I believe they have what they believe are good reasons for > > > > believing as they do. I know i sure did when I was a theist. I just > > > > think they are wrong in their conclusions about God, although in every > > > > other way might be more or less intelligent and thoughtful than I am, > > > > and just as sincere in their convictions. > > > > > > > > My own path of belief and non belief went like this: > > > > > > > > Born atheist. We all are. > > > > > > > > Conditioned into believing in Catholicism's theistic views before I had > > > > any philosophical tools necessary to evaluate such claims. Began > > > > getting a bit snarky about their confidence about all non Catholics > > > > burning in hell at age 10, which increased and generalized into more > > > > distrust for the next 6 years. First 16 years. > > > > > > > > Rejected the external church's view in favor of Maharishi's subjective > > > > state-based belief system. I "experienced" what I believed was the > > > > reality of God beyond belief. Next 15 years > > > > > > > > Began to question that I had an ability to reliably evaluate my own > > > > subjective confidence in my experiences. Rejected subjective mystical > > > > experiences as a reliable basis for belief. Rejected mystical > > > > subjective experiences as a class of valued experience for about 18 > > > > years. > > > > > > > > Began to experiment again with meditation states as related to creative > > > > trance states. I now believe that subjective states cultivated by > > > > meditation have a value, but am still evaluating what that is. Now I > > > > am more interested in the altered states brought about during the > > > > performance of art as opposed to passive meditation as a creativity > > > > enhancer. I am particularly interested in the altered states reached > > > > during live musical performance as well as the quieter states reached > > > > by drawing alone. I am very curious how performing a visual art would > > > > be mind altered by being in front of an audience while creating, but > > > > don't have the skills yet to test these ideas. Stay tuned. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the writing prompt Jim. I always enjoy agreeing to disagree > > > > with you on this topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" > > > > > <seekliberation@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't require the > > > > > > 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't require an intricate > > > > > > belief system full of moral guidelines based on our perception of > > > > > > what God could, should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of > > > > > > what belief system we have or don't have. It is automatic, no > > > > > > beliefs required for it to exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > seekliberation > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > > > > > > > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > > > > > > > existence of a God. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
