Light of my life

[PureX]

I think you presume too much - as in, everyone even asking such questions. It seems to me that the vast majority in fact just accept what they are handed, that is, their religious beliefs, and thus they will not venture further - perhaps by exploring other religious beliefs or that area where none can be seen.

Is that what you have done? If not, why are you so happy to presume that's what everyone else is doing? And if that is what you have done, why are you hear discussing it? Don't you already have all your 'answers'?

I think I'm with those who can accept that answers to any of the questions likely to asked will just not be satisfactory, even if I chose to believe one and it made sense to me. Meaning and purpose - I'm not so bothered about, since again one might just pick what one fancied to satisfy one.

Regardless, your response to the conundrum is defining you. Seems to me that you might want to take responsibility for that, and thereby gain some control of it, and of the results.

 

[PureX]

I think the reverse might be the case - in assuming that one might find any 'right' answers.

Not finding that "one right (certain) answer" does not mean that we don't find meaning and purpose for ourselves, and/or other forms of wisdom, for the looking.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think the reverse might be the case - in assuming that one might find any 'right' answers.

I believe there some 'right' answers, but believers who think they can find those answers without a religion are making themselves into a prophet of sorts. However, only God can send a true Prophet.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Is that what you have done? If not, why are you so happy to presume that's what everyone else is doing? And if that is what you have done, why are you hear discussing it? Don't you already have all your 'answers'?

I was suspicious about religions from the age of 11 when I discovered there were so many. And since my parents weren't so insistent (being default Christians but religion wasn't discussed in our house) I mainly came across religion in school. I wasn't impressed. Later in life I looked at what most of the major religions claimed and none seemed to make any sense - the various differences not being one might see if all were correct. The more obvious conclusion was that none were correct. Reading philosophy from an early age helped in positioning religions as to their roles and likelihood of being true. Being more interested in science probably helped here also. Probably the only religion/philosophy that struck me as having the most value was Buddhism - and it still does.

I think I probably have thought about religions more than most - those that have acquired their religion from culture or parenting, for example, and I doubt that many have looked as much at other religions. I am here to tune my thinking skills mainly. And yes, I'm not really in search of answers since for me there seem to be too many things we don't know or can't know and I recognise I would just be making a best guess at coming down on one particular side. I just don't see it as being that important.

Regardless, your response to the conundrum is defining you. Seems to me that you might want to take responsibility for that, and thereby gain some control of it, and of the results.

I think if I had a troubled mind I might be more inclined to do so but I don't. I have no motivation to do so.

 

[PureX]

I was suspicious about religions from the age of 11 when I discovered there were so many. And since my parents weren't so insistent (being default Christians but religion wasn't discussed in our house) I mainly came across religion in school. I wasn't impressed. Later in life I looked at what most of the major religions claimed and none seemed to make any sense - the various differences not being one might see if all were correct. The more obvious conclusion was that none were correct. Reading philosophy from an early age helped in positioning religions as to their roles and likelihood of being true. Being more interested in science probably helped here also. Probably the only religion/philosophy that struck me as having the most value was Buddhism - and it still does.

Some people understand right off that the religions are not gods. They are merely imagined representations of a god-ideal, and that God remains a profound mystery to us all. Others will never understand this. And yet either way, some people choose to stay with their 'given' religion, and other choose not to. Because they are all thinking about it; considering it as they understand it, and choosing to accept that understanding as probable, or reject it as being improbable.

I think I probably have thought about religions more than most - those that have acquired their religion from culture or parenting, for example, and I doubt that many have looked as much at other religions. I am here to tune my thinking skills mainly. And yes, I'm not really in search of answers since for me there seem to be too many things we don't know or can't know and I recognise I would just be making a best guess at coming down on one particular side. I just don't see it as being that important.

And yet your position on this issue continues to define you as a human being. Each time you react to the questions, those reactions are continuing to define who you are and who you are becoming.

I think if I had a troubled mind I might be more inclined to do so but I don't. I have no motivation to do so.

You've already given the issue a generous share of contemplation, and I am sure will do so again, in the future, when the questions become unavoidable for you, again.

 

[Ayjaydee]

Embracing the unknowable is the doorway to wisdom. If you really believe it's just "mental masturbation" then I feel very sad for you.

Trying to embrace something u never will is sadder yet

 

[Mock Turtle]

Some people understand right off that the religions are not gods. They are merely imagined representations of a god-ideal, and that God remains a profound mystery to us all. Others will never understand this. And yet either way, some people choose to stay with their 'given' religion, and other choose not to. Because they are all thinking about it; considering it as they understand it, and choosing to accept that understanding as probable, or reject it as being improbable.
And yet your position on this issue continues to define you as a human being. Each time you react to the questions, those reactions are continuing to define who you are and who you are becoming.
You've already given the issue a generous share of contemplation, and I am sure will do so again, in the future, when the questions become unavoidable for you, again.

If there was any conflict in my life then I might, but there isn't. I have few issues that trouble me apart from what comes from outside - such as the beliefs of many (often being religious ones) that harm others (homosexuality, gender issues, female equality, child rights, etc.). I may have views that don't coincide with large numbers but don't we all? And these are not such as to harm others.

 

[Augustus]

Perhaps the 'atheism is a belief' argument ...but at least it might satisfy those intent on wilfully abusing language to assert atheism as some 'other faith'.

These are 2 very different arguments

Atheism is a belief is just the view that atheism constitutes a position one takes in response to the question of existence of gods. It basically reflects the 'traditional' usage of the word atheism.

Atheism as a faith/religion/belief system is something completely different that tends to be mostly used for the purpose of apologetics.

 

[Mock Turtle]

These are 2 very different arguments

Atheism is a belief is just the view that atheism constitutes a position one takes in response to the question of existence of gods. It basically reflects the 'traditional' usage of the word atheism.

Atheism as a faith/religion/belief system is something completely different that tends to be mostly used for the purpose of apologetics.

Yes, I think that was a bit sloppy - it should have read 'atheism as a faith', or just another faith, since that is the claim usually made.

 

[Audie]

Perhaps the 'atheism is a belief' argument could be resolved by seeing religious beliefs as looking towards the light - with many seeing something different in whatever 'light' they see - all the different religious beliefs. Atheists on the other hand are in the dark, not looking to the light, or seeing any. Not a good reflection perhaps on us atheists, but at least it might satisfy those intent on wilfully abusing language to assert atheism as some 'other faith'.

Light of your life huh

 

[Audie]

I can't think of any possible way, logically (or honestly), that you could be certain of that.

Are you certain there is a god?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Light of your life huh

How did you know I hated C & W?

 

[Audie]

How did you know I hated C & W?

Asians know about things.

I knew that was country and western
because I saw the cowboy hat.

 

[Ancient Soul]

Perhaps the 'atheism is a belief' argument could be resolved by seeing religious beliefs as looking towards the light - with many seeing something different in whatever 'light' they see - all the different religious beliefs. Atheists on the other hand are in the dark, not looking to the light, or seeing any. Not a good reflection perhaps on us atheists, but at least it might satisfy those intent on wilfully abusing language to assert atheism as some 'other faith'.

Well, it still is a faith based dogma.

Atheists believe that God and all related spiritual concepts do not exist because they have no physical "proof" that they exist.

So they are relying upon faith that they are "right" without having any proof that the other side is "wrong".

 

[lukethethird]

An increasing number of atheists these days are falling under the spell of "scientism", and the arrogant presumption that their demand for "objective evidence" is the only logical and reasonable resolution to the mystery of "God" apart from determined atheism. This kind of irrational arrogance is often accompanied by a very similar (to yours) presumption that they have no need or use for the positive effects that the possibility of God's existence offers to the vast majority of their fellow humans. An arrogance that is soon borne out by the disdain they hold toward anyone who does feel the need or desire to avail themselves of the effects of that positive possibility.

The possibility of God's existence or the possibility of God's non existence is irrelevant to anything that matters. All that leaves is people vilifying anyone that doesn't agree with them.

 

[lukethethird]

Well, it still is a faith based dogma.

Atheists believe that God and all related spiritual concepts do not exist because they have no physical "proof" that they exist.

So they are relying upon faith that they are "right" without having any proof that the other side is "wrong".

If they didn't have any proof that the other side is 'wrong' they would probably be agreeing with them.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well, it still is a faith based dogma.

Atheists believe that God and all related spiritual concepts do not exist because they have no physical "proof" that they exist.

So they are relying upon faith that they are "right" without having any proof that the other side is "wrong".

Except it isn't a dogma, but rather not believing the proposition that there is a God or gods or anything such. So no faith required. As many have already pointed out before elsewhere, not believing in some proposition - existence of Santa Claus, fairies, etc. - hardly means that one therefore has a faith in the lack of such, unless one wants to abuse the language we use. All that we believe or don't believe is founded in trust or more likely probabilities as to our being correct, but many of us realise this such that for many or even most things we will have some or a very large amount of doubt. At least many of us admit this, whereas many of the religious seem to have certainty as to their beliefs or faith - so as my tag indicates, a form of arrogance.

And of course, if you believed such, that lacking a belief equals faith, then you will likely be duplicitous - not having your one faith (in whatever) - but having several faiths, in all the things you didn't believe - which of course is nonsense.

 

[PureX]

The possibility of God's existence or the possibility of God's non existence is irrelevant to anything that matters. All that leaves is people vilifying anyone that doesn't agree with them.

Since the actual existence and nature of God cannot be determined by mere humans, the possibility of God's existence and nature are all that's left for us to grapple with. And the determinant factor then becomes the effect of that possibility on us, and on the quality of our life experience. And since that effect is fundamentally subjective, so, then, are the 'reasoning' and attitudes regarding them. There is no reason that we should agree on the subject of God's nature or existence as everyone imagines those possibilities differently, and experiences a different effect as a result.

 

[osgart]

I see conscience as a result of natural reason. And a result of that is the necessary regard for others. It can be by necessity or by way of love for others.

I am atheist til proven otherwise. There is a light of living that can be realized by anyone though.

One mode of thought is evidence based. Another mode of thought is making imagination a reality if reality can incorporate it. For some reason people can have vision and see beyond the limitations of reality, and see how those limitations are overcome.

I don't underestimate the value of dreaming big, even for atheists. Dreams that have a reality basis but see beyond the current reality with imagination are the people that move society forward.

 

[lukethethird]

Since the actual existence and nature of God cannot be determined by mere humans, the possibility of God's existence and nature are all that's left for us to grapple with. And the determinant factor then becomes the effect of that possibility on us, and on the quality of our life experience. And since that effect is fundamentally subjective, so, then, are the 'reasoning' and attitudes regarding them. There is no reason that we should agree on the subject of God's nature or existence as everyone imagines those possibilities differently, and experiences a different effect as a result.

You can speak for yourself, for some, God's existence is meaningless to anything that matters, nothing to grapple with.