is the atheist stance too strong in some cases?

[bertrandrusselisdead]

I also have a background in mathematics and remember one of my lecturers Ron Atkin had a book which still seems to be available called "The multidimensional Man", the concept of dimension in that book was used in a similar way to how I am using it.

I'm not saying the two-dimensional person won't disagree with the one-dimensional person, it is just that if the one-dimensional person insists on interpreting the world wholly in selfish terms it is very difficult to have a dialog with them. They only interpret the world in terms of what they can get out of it, they only do something that provides a benefit to them. They just don't understand how or why someone would want to do something for wholly unselfish reasons. However anyone who lives a two-dimensional existence can testify that it is far better to live thinking of others rather than just thinking of yourself. Can they "prove" that to the one-dimensional person? All they can do it try to get them to shift their perspective and encourage them to make a leap into a fuller,  richer, mode of existence.

But what if breaking free from this selfish, one-dimensional way of living is just the step on to something even better? What if it doesn't stop there? What if our experience of the good, the true, the spiritual and the beautiful are all pointers on to a richer, more complex mode of existence? Have you found a strength from being able to totally forgive someone for a huge wrong they did you? Did you feel that strength came from something greater than yourself? Have you ever wondered if the experience of beauty and nature led beyond the appearance into something deeper? Do you sometimes feel a simple joy of living, a delight in existence itself, in spite of what is happening in your life? Have you experienced "mindfulness", the joy of the now, without worry or concern for the past or the future? In genuine friendships do you get a glimpse of what a radical community of people who care for each other would be like?

Life is full of glimpses into the infinite, opportunities to step sideways from this world, today. We should shine like lights in the universe. Never shut off the possibility of achieving a greater intensity of existence.

[bertrandrusselisdead]

I thought of two other points following your comments.

#1 The Two Dimensional View

Some people look at things from the other person's point of view, they think of others, they are ethical.

I think most people think of things in terms of others' points of view. That is important for ethical concepts. Thinking in terms of other people does not necessarily lead to "ethical" behaviour though. They might be a torturer.

Thanks for this response as I don't think I have communicated what I mean very clearly. By two-dimensional I mean acting unselfishly, acting and seeing the world altruistically. The one dimensional person sees everything in terms of what does it mean for them. When they spend their money they are thinking how they can spend it to benefit themselves. When the consider how they will spend their time they think how they can spend it to please or benefit themselves. They see the other as a threat to satisfying their own desires. Another way of describing this would be to say they see things from a narrow perspective. It is also possible to open this a little wider and say some people see things in terms of their family or own group. It doesn't just have to be as narrow as an individual perspective on everything. The point is that there is a general framework of viewing the world that is narrow and selfish.

"Most people think of things in terms of others' point of view" - this is too broad. Yes, an egotistical person may worry about what other people will think of them, they are worried about their reputation. They may think of others' actions so they can counter-act them, they think of the other, but as a threat or a competitor. A torturer would consider the feelings of the other, but simply to identify whether they were in pain or not. They are not viewing the world from an ethical, open perspective, valuing others as people.

A two-dimensional person is also a one-dimensional person, they know what it means to see the world from their own point of view. They understand that when asked for money for a charity they could keep the money to spend on themselves. They may on occasion act selfishly, they may sometimes see the other as a competitor, however they at least understand and acknowledge a higher level of living than that, and can also see the other as someone they have ethical obligations towards.

#2

Damn it I wish I was "three dimensional" now. The way you've phrased it, it seems that being spiritual is better than not being spiritual because three is a bigger number than two. Brilliant!

Atheists by definition lack something the theist has. The whole definition of atheist is a negative one. Any discussion of atheism must acknowledge that and try to articulate what that space or gap means. For the atheist they believe the lack is a lack of error and confusion. All the things a theist does (that make them a theist), the atheist doesn't do because they believe them to be somehow "wrong".

I am trying to suggest that instead of a set of beliefs - which is a very logocentric way of viewing life - we look at theism in terms of experiences, actions and articulations of those experiences and actions. Look at the resources you use to forgive someone who has wronged you. Are these really totally distinct and separate from the way a Christian speaks about forgiveness? Can you begin to occupy this perspective, if you start to understand how the language works?

[Kodanshi]

Perhaps "atheists" could learn the experience through learning the language. Perhaps atheists already have these experiences but don't have the language so they don't organise and structure the experience, and don't value it as leading to something significant and important.

You seem not to have taken into account that a lot of atheists were former theists and are steeped in religious terminology and ways of thinking.

[curiosityandthecat]

Atheists by definition lack something the theist has. The whole definition of atheist is a negative one. Any discussion of atheism must acknowledge that and try to articulate what that space or gap means. For the atheist they believe the lack is a lack of error and confusion. All the things a theist does (that make them a theist), the atheist doesn't do because they believe them to be somehow "wrong".

This is completely arbitrary based on the quality chosen. One could easily turn it around: theists lack the ability to avoid magical thinking and superstition, which they atheists have. All the things the atheist does (that makes them an atheist), the theist doesn't do because they believe them to be somehow "wrong". Language is fun, isn't it? Sure, the word "atheist" is defined as "without belief" but the person "atheist" is much more than that.

[Tom62]

What atheists lack is a believe in a god.  A non-belief in god, doesn't mean that someone couldn't  be spiritual. For example many people think of the historical Buddha that he was a spiritual person, nethertheless Buddha never expressed a believe in god and even discouraged his followers from such "speculation".  There are also atheists, who are spiritual without believing in a god. Here is an interesting quote from a spiritual atheist that I found on http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-spir ... rship.html

.... How can I express this sort of spirituality, then? There are many ways, really. Nature walks can bring us closer to the natural universe. Meditation can bring us closer to ourselves and our thoughts. Reading can bring us closer to the vast array of knowledge collected by humanity. Showing compassion towards others brings us closer to each other and strengthens our complex human bonds.

[AlP]

I'm not saying the two-dimensional person won't disagree with the one-dimensional person, it is just that if the one-dimensional person insists on interpreting the world wholly in selfish terms it is very difficult to have a dialog with them. They only interpret the world in terms of what they can get out of it, they only do something that provides a benefit to them. They just don't understand how or why someone would want to do something for wholly unselfish reasons. However anyone who lives a two-dimensional existence can testify that it is far better to live thinking of others rather than just thinking of yourself. Can they "prove" that to the one-dimensional person? All they can do it try to get them to shift their perspective and encourage them to make a leap into a fuller, richer, mode of existence.

This is a false analogy. I understand the concept of a mathematical dimension. All people exist in a 3 dimensional physical space (the universe). I understand that you are talking about an ethical or spiritual space. But its just an an analogy and a false one.

But what if breaking free from this selfish, one-dimensional way of living is just the step on to something even better? What if it doesn't stop there?

In general, as time progresses, I change things and I learn to change things. My motivations for changing them are arbitrary. Sometimes I change things to make them (as I see it at the time) better. That is arbitrary.

What if our experience of the good, the true, the spiritual and the beautiful are all pointers on to a richer, more complex mode of existence?

What if?

Have you found a strength from being able to totally forgive someone for a huge wrong they did you?

Yes. But it is not strength.

Did you feel that strength came from something greater than yourself?

No.

Have you ever wondered if the experience of beauty and nature led beyond the appearance into something deeper?

Nature is beautiful. It is so beautiful it frequently reduces me to tears. Of course it has significance beyond its simple appearance. But it is an arbitrary significance conjured up by my mind. Nothing more.

Do you sometimes feel a simple joy of living, a delight in existence itself, in spite of what is happening in your life?

Yes.

Have you experienced "mindfulness", the joy of the now, without worry or concern for the past or the future?

Yes but I don't call it mindfulness. I call it nihilism. And its not just the past and the future I reject. I meditate on nothing. I try and reject everything.

In genuine friendships do you get a glimpse of what a radical community of people who care for each other would be like?

I like my isolation and independence. That doesn't appeal to me.

"Most people think of things in terms of others' point of view" - this is too broad. Yes, an egotistical person may worry about what other people will think of them, they are worried about their reputation. They may think of others' actions so they can counter-act them, they think of the other, but as a threat or a competitor. A torturer would consider the feelings of the other, but simply to identify whether they were in pain or not. They are not viewing the world from an ethical, open perspective, valuing others as people.

Human animals evolved to be altruistic towards one another (their group at least). Many social animals are that way.

Atheists by definition lack something the theist has. The whole definition of atheist is a negative one. Any discussion of atheism must acknowledge that and try to articulate what that space or gap means. For the atheist they believe the lack is a lack of error and confusion. All the things a theist does (that make them a theist), the atheist doesn't do because they believe them to be somehow "wrong".

Your use of the word "lack" shows your bias. I could define atheist as someone who is free of something a theist has. That means the same thing but I have chosen a word that expresses it in a positive way.

There is no space or gap. You're returning to your false analogy of the 3-dimensional person. There is no such space and therefore nothing for there to be a gap in.

[VanReal]

But what if breaking free from this selfish, one-dimensional way of living is just the step on to something even better? What if it doesn't stop there? What if our experience of the good, the true, the spiritual and the beautiful are all pointers on to a richer, more complex mode of existence?

Is this "what if" a believe in god and the good and true will lead us to enlightenment?  I'm not sure what the mode of existence is.  Are you thinking that it would exist here on this planet in this life, because I don't think it has, or is this mor of an afterlife thing?

Have you found a strength from being able to totally forgive someone for a huge wrong they did you? Did you feel that strength came from something greater than yourself?

My forgiving a person comes from my thought process that either I am willing to forgive them and move on or I choose not to forgive and to consider that person no longer worth my time in dealing with or thinking about.  I don't need strength to do that, more a process of pros and cons and is it something I am willing to overlook.

Have you ever wondered if the experience of beauty and nature led beyond the appearance into something deeper? Do you sometimes feel a simple joy of living, a delight in existence itself, in spite of what is happening in your life? Have you experienced "mindfulness", the joy of the now, without worry or concern for the past or the future? In genuine friendships do you get a glimpse of what a radical community of people who care for each other would be like?

When I take my Wellbutrin I feel all of those things and more!  I'm not sure if you are thinking that these things are coming from some outward force or if you are just wondering if we still have feelings of awe even when we do not attribute that to a god.

Life is full of glimpses into the infinite, opportunities to step sideways from this world, today. We should shine like lights in the universe. Never shut off the possibility of achieving a greater intensity of existence.

This is very poetic.  I'm not real sure what we are supposed to take from this other than that we should be more aware of the wonders occuring around us and be open to things.  I think we are very open and experience many wonders, feelings, emotions, and even undefined things in our lives.

[bertrandrusselisdead]

A few more thoughts.

You seem not to have taken into account that a lot of atheists were former theists and are steeped in religious terminology and ways of thinking.

Every dimension has a pull and an attraction. There is an attraction towards the immediate - meeting the demands of your job, your family, watching TV, it is possible to just get pulled into the rush and flow of the immediate, the world of a million different things. It takes a certain discipline to take time out to reflect on your life and where it is going. I'd suggest that reflection is also part of the third dimension, it is outside of the here-and-now. Is there a stable self? The self is pulled in many directions, we have conflicting beliefs, hopes, desires. Having the ability or gift to take yourself out of time, to look at time from the perspective of eternity, to live in such a way that life doesn't just hurry by is a spiritual discipline.

I'm trying to suggest that everyone has intimations of immortality: we can all reflect on being and time, there is a way to live that enriches your spirit that isn't arbitrary.

My motivations for changing them are arbitrary.

But it is an arbitrary significance conjured up by my mind. Nothing more.

I don't call it mindfulness. I call it nihilism.

2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!"
       says the Teacher.
       "Utterly meaningless!
       Everything is meaningless."

 3 What does man gain from all his labor
       at which he toils under the sun?

 4 Generations come and generations go,
       but the earth remains forever.

 5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
       and hurries back to where it rises.

 6 The wind blows to the south
       and turns to the north;
       round and round it goes,
       ever returning on its course.

 7 All streams flow into the sea,
       yet the sea is never full.
       To the place the streams come from,
       there they return again.

 8 All things are wearisome,
       more than one can say.
       The eye never has enough of seeing,
       nor the ear its fill of hearing.
Ecclesiastes 1:2-8

Life is hermeneutical. You can write the story of your life where everything is arbitrary and meaningless or where there is a thread and pattern of meaning and significance. The text is open to interpretation and you can weave in beauty and design or nihilism.

Not every religious life is lived in the third dimension. Jesus' main opponents were the religious leaders of his time.

13"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.[c]

 15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Matthew 23:13-15

Christians were called atheists because they weren't religious in the way everyone else was religious at the time - trying to appease the gods in order to win their favour, but religion - man's search for God - now appears in Christianity today.

There are plenty of links between original Christianity and Buddhism - read the "Jesus Sutras", the writings of the early Christians in China, and you can see they are saying a lot of things in common, but Buddhism today is very superstitious, you have to go beyond the appearance of religion to get to the inner meaning.

The theologian Paul Tillich defined God as depth. If you have any ultimate concern, something of ultimate significance then that is your god, the centre to which you gravitate. You either do that consciously or unconsciously, you either live reflectively or as part of the herd.

There is a spiritual dimension to life that doesn't have to be entered through prior adherence to irrational beliefs. It can be experienced empirically and reflected on rationally, but it is beyond the here and now.

[Tom62]

There are plenty of links between original Christianity and Buddhism - read the "Jesus Sutras", the writings of the early Christians in China, and you can see they are saying a lot of things in common, but Buddhism today is very superstitious, you have to go beyond the appearance of religion to get to the inner meaning.

How true. Some years ago I was on vacation in Sri Lanka, where I visited a Buddhist temple. In this temple they kept a tooth of Buddha and many people believed that this tooth would bring them luck. In that respect, I don't think that they are much different than the Christians of the roman catholic church, who worship bleeding Maria statues or the bones of a well forgotten bishop .

[AlP]

I'm trying to suggest that everyone has intimations of immortality: we can all reflect on being and time, there is a way to live that enriches your spirit that isn't arbitrary.

I honestly don't think there is. Believing so is delusion IMHO. I'm not sure what you mean by "intimations of immortality". My thoughts on mortality are these. Every human dies. When I die I will stop thinking. I do not fear it. In fact I rather look forward to it. But I try to avoid it, both for myself and others. Mortality is also a useful measuring tool. By comparing the significance of whatever pretensions I find in the world against the significance of my approaching death, I can see just how unimportant they are.

Life is hermeneutical. You can write the story of your life where everything is arbitrary and meaningless or where there is a thread and pattern of meaning and significance. The text is open to interpretation and you can weave in beauty and design or nihilism.

I find nihilism to be beautiful and designed. Beauty is subjective. Design is arbitrary.

[maestroanth]

F

[bertrandrusselisdead]

What has struck me in this exchange is how empty atheism is - what does it do? It doesn't inform the atheist in any meaningful way - it doesn't give them any instruction or guidance on anything that is important to them. Should I seek money and fame or should I live an ethical life? Atheism won't help you. How should I bring my kids up? Atheism won't help you. How should I treat my partner? Atheism won't help.

To say "I am an atheist", what does it mean? What does it tell you about the person? It doesn't tell you if they are moral or immoral, if they are have given all their money to the poor or if they are a mass murderer, if they sit and watch TV all day or work hard, if it is right to lie, cheat and steal or if you should live honest and help others.

It defines itself in what is isn't, not what it is, and so it is empty of content. If someone were to claim atheism implies nihilism (and such a link is arbitrary), we might think this indicated a mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence, but an atheist might respond that for them nihilism is beautiful. Since everything is arbitrary for the atheist, nihilism can be beautiful, helping the poor can be evil, mass murder can be art and saving the planet can be a big joke. Anything can mean what they want it to mean.

[Whitney]

What has struck me in this exchange is how empty atheism is - what does it do? It doesn't inform the atheist in any meaningful way - it doesn't give them any instruction or guidance on anything that is important to them. Should I seek money and fame or should I live an ethical life? Atheism won't help you. How should I bring my kids up? Atheism won't help you. How should I treat my partner? Atheism won't help.

Right...just like theism is not a life philosphy.

[AlP]

It defines itself in what is isn't, not what it is, and so it is empty of content. If someone were to claim atheism implies nihilism (and such a link is arbitrary), we might think this indicated a mood of despair at the pointlessness of existence, but an atheist might respond that for them nihilism is beautiful. Since everything is arbitrary for the atheist, nihilism can be beautiful, helping the poor can be evil, mass murder can be art and saving the planet can be a big joke. Anything can mean what they want it to mean.

I should point out that most atheists are not nihilists. I am not speaking for atheism. Maybe you just landed on the wrong thread .

[curiosityandthecat]

What has struck me in this exchange is how empty atheism is - what does it do? It doesn't inform the atheist in any meaningful way - it doesn't give them any instruction or guidance on anything that is important to them. Should I seek money and fame or should I live an ethical life? Atheism won't help you. How should I bring my kids up? Atheism won't help you. How should I treat my partner? Atheism won't help.

This is what communication is for. You see emptiness because you need that structure. We, by-and-large, do not. It informs atheists in a tremendous way, a way which is often difficult for me to express because there's no tenets or list I can point to. I often refer to the Charles Bukowski quote:

"For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us."

To say "I am an atheist", what does it mean? What does it tell you about the person? It doesn't tell you if they are moral or immoral, if they are have given all their money to the poor or if they are a mass murderer, if they sit and watch TV all day or work hard, if it is right to lie, cheat and steal or if you should live honest and help others.

And obviously someone wearing a little gold cross would never do anything morally questionable simply because of their affiliation with a belief, right?