How many here are atheists?

[Caleb]

Well, one side effect of this discussion is that it has helped me to clarify the P/J function of the myers-briggs. I had always understood it only in a "well, that's what the words on this paper are saying" way, but the other three functions had seemed more "real" to me. This discussion has really brought the p/j distinction home to me in a real way.

I take a look at Menno, for example. Who always seems ready to define a word, whereas the very thought of defining words almost makes me cringe, and I think it demonstrates the differences in style, when it comes to relating to information. This is an obvious oversimplification, but the J type looks at information and says, "alright, let's nail this down so we can get on to working with it" whereas the p type is thinking, "let's not be hasty, you don't want to set something in stone and narrow the possibilities. Let's keep the options open."  Interesting. http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/judging-or-perceiving.asp

Anyway, I shall try to be more tolerant of you J's in the future. Except Menno, cause that whole turning himself into a machine thing is just a little too "Resistance is futile" for my tastes. Did anyone else ever wonder why they didn't just throw water on the borg?

[Caleb]

To Dale,

I will try to respond to your post later. I want to give it the thought it deserves, since you put a lot of effort into it.

I will say this, though, I think a lot of the misunderstandings here come from this: this whole discussion to me has sort of been odd. But I can't help but feel that there is this anticipation or expectation on your part that I ought to reexamine what I believe. I didn't mean to imply that you don't have a framework for viewing the world. Quite the contrary, I'm sure you do. But I simply meant that you haven't communicated that to me. You seem to want to convince me to simply yank God out of my framework. How does that work, without completely shaking my entire apple cart? It's not like one of those boards that you see in offices where people's names are there with "In" and "Out" and I can just simply move God to the "Out" column. It's not like that. Removing God would have consequences for the rest of the way that I view the world. So what do you have to offer? I've spent years trying to construct a worldview that I believe is rational and consistent with humanity. I continue to read and refine. I'm certainly open to different conceptions of the universe, so if there is a framework that you would like to share, you're most welcome to do so. The problem is that usually when I ask this question from others, I either get more of the "attack God" stuff, or else I get materialism repackaged, which I have already rejected. I know that atheists don't believe in God. that's not a revelation to me, I'm more interested in what people believe than what they don't believe. and i can imagine no worldview more inconsistent with everything I know about being human than materialism.

[mackler]

I thought it might've been FTL, but we talk about both govt and god, and I know that neither exist, while people who believe in them certainly do, so it can't be us...

The point I'm getting at is that I used to identify myself as an atheist.  To do otherwise, I felt, would have been superstitious, unscientific, and furthermore would have been associating myself with organized religion, which in many instances is distasteful.

What changed is not so much that I decided that I do believe in god, but rather I decided that I do not believe in anything else.  Everything we talk about--love, friends, Free Talk Live, the internet, lunch--is an abstraction.  Even references to supposedly physical "objects" are just one way to characterize human experience, and no one characterization (that is, linguistic expression) is "true."  But if everyone around you uses the same linguistic abstractions, you never questionit, so it is taken as "true."  (Some call this postmodernism.)

In the past, my response to the question "do you believe in god?" would have been "no."  But now (depending on the context) my answer might be "do you believe in America?"  Your average person-on-the-street will have no problem asserting tha America actually exists.  But he can point to no evidence of the existence of America that does not also prove the existence of god.  They both have buildings, representatives, ceremonies, songs, symbols, statues, holy writings.  Either they both exists or neither exists.

So the real question for me is: will I go through my life denying the existence of everything?  I conclude that would be most unuseful.  Consider the talk-radio host who denies that there exists such a thing as government, but who still understands that talking about government can be a useful way to improve life.  Certainly "government" is just a word used by some people to justify their actions, but by playing the same "linguistic game" as those people we can affect what actions they can get away with.  The issue for me is not truth, but utility.  Is it useful to talk about this abstraction called government as if it existed?  I believe that yes it is, and the fact that it is not real does not stop me.

When I see someone do something immoral, I may say to him "god will punish you for that!"  Do I literally mean there is an old, bearded man sitting in a throne in the sky about to rain down lightning bolts?  No.  What I'm saying is simply another way of expressing the sentiment that an atheist might express as "what goes around comes around."  It's another way of saying, "I can't tell you the exact details but if you go around screwing with people, you will get yours."  Over generations, some of those who call themselves religious have proposed what might be called the rules of god.  Ways to predict outcomes where enough data for scientific predictions do not exist.  Are the predictions perfect?  No.  Are they useful?  IMO they can be.  Enough so that nowadays, when I hear someone refer to god, or an act of god, my reaction is no longer a knee-jerk reaction of "well I don't believe in god so your statement has no utility for me."

[dalebert]

So what do you have to offer?

That's a very good question actually. I think I finally am starting to get what you mean by a world view. Believe it or not, it's something I've given quite a lot of thought to, but brace yourself, cause I don't know how to describe it briefly.

[Caleb]

Believe me, I know. I've been trying to meet your questions by supplying my worldview to you, and hardly even know where to start. That's why I said that the discussion would take a very long time. It would be great if I could just download my thoughts to you. Menno ... how's that work coming on the computerized brain? 

[Caleb]

Where did I personally insult you. I went out of my way NOT to be insulting. Please explain. Also, when you equate atheism with skepticism, and skepticism with nihilism, you "accuse" atheists of having no values. And as for meaning, it needs no external check, nothing that it necessarily has to be created in relation to, so there is no leap of faith there. I say "this has meaning for me, I wish to spend my life doing this because I believe it is right and it fills me with a sense of purpose." Done. No faith at all, a conclusion based on my subjective valuation of things, which occurs entirely inside my head.

For one, the suggestion that maybe I have a brain tumor. For two, the suggestion that, as opposed to you, I haven't thought through my belief system from the ground up. That I just sat in church and got my beliefs like a mindless zombie from the pulpit. That's just about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard about myself. But like I said, I am ignoring those.

For one, nihilism is a form of philisophical skepticism (the most extreme form possible), so it's not like that, at least, was much of a leap.

I didn't say that atheism necessarily leads to nihilism. I have friends who are buddhists, which seems to be inherently atheistic. But I wouldn't call them nihilists, nor conclude that their premises would naturally lead to nihilism. I said that atheism, in concert with materialism, leads to nihilism as a natural conclusion of the premises. I'm also not interested in pushing you there. Nihilism is just about as close as it gets to metaphysical hell. But I do think that if you would examine what you just said about meaning, you would see that basically, you haven't said anything. So long as "meaning" has meaning, then you can create it. But when you define meaning as "whatever it is that I create", then essentially you are arguing that "I can create whatever it is that I create." True enough, but at the end of it, it's meaningless. What you've created doesn't have any inherent value, you're only pretending that it does. The word meaning has a connotation that is really its strongest part. You're trying to borrow the connotation of "meaning" while changing the inherent definition. I'm simply saying, "hey, the connotation stays over here."  You are just "doing stuff" and calling it meaning. But whose to say what you need to do? You could choose to help people, or you could choose to try to rule the world. Either way, if meaning has been redefined as whatever you find valuable, then both are equally (il)legitimate.

[edited to add this:] What's weird is that I don't even know why are you acting all upset at these concepts. These are existentialist teachings. I don't think Sartre would disagree with me here.

[Dylboz]

The church comment was not directed at you personally. And I also didn't suggest YOU had a brain tumor, but rather that the internal experience of transcendence occurs inside you head. So, while it could seem genuine and mystical, it could be the result of a brain tumor, a physical, proximate cause. Why is that insulting? I apologize if it was, but it was meant to make the point that these experiences are interpreted inside your head, and may have causes different then what they appear at first. There have actually been many documented cases of brain tumors causing these very sorts of visions and religious fervor, in fact, these experiences occasioned accurate diagnosis in some cases early enough to intervene effectively. Recent studies have taken religious people and monitored their brains while they were in meditative states, deep prayer and religious euphoria, and they were able to pinpoint the areas and patterns of brain activity common to them all.

As for meaning, I meant that it is deeply personal, and subjective. So while you're right in what you say, I guess that's what I mean. There is no objective, external standard by which meaning can be judged. Actions can be judged, because we can see where they harm or infringe on others, but meaning cannot be so easily quantified. I'm not trying to borrow anything, and I can assure you there was no thought given to connotation along the lines you suggest when I wrote that post. I was simply saying that attributing meaning is a personal, and again, totally internal process, based on an individual's subjective valuations and interpretations of objective reality, their experience. Who is to say what you should do? NO ONE! So long as you aren't hurting anyone or destroying their property, no one has any right to compel you to do anything, or prevent you from it either. There is no ruler (in any sense of the word) for "meaning," and so you can't say to me that what I think is meaningful is meaningless, once I imbue it with meaning, it has meaning FOR ME. Meaning is, for everyone, what they find meaningful. What other possible definition could you subscribe to? If there is an objective standard, I've yet to see it, and I suspect I'd take issue with it.

As for Satre, I can't stand him, to my mind, being free is no condemnation, nor a prison, nor a nauseating burden to bear. I like Camus' fiction writing, but Siddartha, by Herman Hesse, is about as close to a Bible for me as the literary world has to offer. I enjoy existentialist philosophy, but I don't think I'd identify myself as an existentialist.

[Pat K]

[dalebert]

That's what everyone says about me. I'm just a big ole gumpy bumpkin, going around depressing everyone that's cursed to be in my presence!

[Raineyrocks]

[Raineyrocks]

That's what everyone says about me. I'm just a big ole gumpy bumpkin, going around depressing everyone that's cursed to be in my presence!

I never said it.   You seemed alright when I met you!

[J’raxis 270145]

/ME peeks in.

So, did anyone prove God exists, or doesn't exist, yet?
Did anyone change anyone else's mind?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Nope, didn't think so.

[David]

These kinds of discussions should always be done with the expectation that beliefs are very personal, and that it is not something to debate casually.  I should have said this at the beginning of the thread.   

[Jim Johnson]

/ME peeks in.

Did anyone change anyone else's mind?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Nope, didn't think so.

Congratulations... you have discovered the result of every thread everywhere.   

[Russell Kanning]

Do theists in turn use the phrase "your science"?

I do.