Living As Atheist?

[februarystars]

An atheist usually lives his/her life as if the universe has ,at bottom, no design, no purpose, no good, no evil, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

I don't like this kind of nihilistic view of atheism. I've been an atheist most of my adult life; and my reality is as richly tapestried in meaning as any theist's.

The cosmos is beyond full comprehension, we are but small temporary fragments of order within it. All that we know is the cosmos as experienced by us. And the human experience has design, purpose, good, bad, and even pity.

This is the one thing I struggle with as an atheist. I tend to get into the mindset sometimes that life is a pointless series of repetitions â€" I work so that I can afford food and shelter, but the only reason I need food and shelter is so that my body will survive another day to work. Excessive repetition gives me anxiety, and I have a very pessimistic outlook about the future.

I hope to be able to convince myself otherwise eventually, but I usually just try not to think about it. Camus would shake his head with disappointment.

[Twentythree]

One could easily argue that there is no afterlife, but rather an eternal life beyond consciousness. Your life did not begin at birth it began at the inception of life, the molecular chain reactions that started life are still in motion and we have the unique experience of being able to directly influence future of this chain reaction. I am talking about intellectual evolution, or knowledge building. If you look at the development of man, major advances are telescopic, each of our major intellectual breakthroughs happens at an increasing rate. If you look at the time between fire and agriculture, between agriculture and industry and between industry and technology, each of these major revolutions has happened in increasingly shorter increments. This is due to  knowledge building, each generation passes on their successive knowledge and breakthroughs onto the next generation so in essence, anything that was ever taught from one human to another has an everlasting effect. Our knowledge, in particular the knowledge we share gets passed on and becomes the foundation for the next generations breakthroughs. With this understanding it’s hard to not see a purpose in life. That purpose is better served in discovery, and not the regurgitation of centuries old rhetoric.

[Willow]

I believe in an after (my) life.  I am no solopsist, so I believe that after I die, other people will continue to exist, and therefore my contribition to humanity has an effect on those who will outlive me.

If the universe does not have a supernaturally ascribed direction and meaning, isn't that the perfect oportunity to devise one's own meaning.  Doing something creative, hedonistic or alturistic can define a world view, give ownership of life and fill the void.

[Melmoth]

As agnostic, I am not sure if there is an afterlife and a plan/purpose behind the universe as I am not sure if there is not also. I might have no problem with accepting atheism scientifically but emotionally I am wondering how atheist could continue his life if every thing is basically mechanical and there is no gap for mystery or a hope from beyond-self?

Personally, I don't see how the addition of a supernatural, or of any kind of God, could add meaning to a meaningless universe. Worship? If I took that seriously as a 'purpose' in life I'd worship a person; someone with lots of nice, juicy flaws. Conversely, I don't see how the lack of a God could detract it, if any objective meaning were possible. So to me the two questions "can there be a God?" and "can there be meaning?" are totally irrelevant to each other.

As for getting by with the meaninglessness of it all, I think children have the right idea. You don't see them playing in a sand boxes asking themselves "But this castle I just built has no objective, definable purpose! No serious meaning within the grander scheme of things! All is grey and hopeless!" They don't care, they just do things and think things and mess about. I try to see life as play. It doesn't need some epic meaning. We don't need to take it so damn seriously.

Also, I'm not sure what 'a hope from beyond-self' is, but mystery there is aplenty. Again, I don't see how God, present or absent, affects this.

[Asmodean]

Hi everyone,

Hi.

Is there a purpose of the existence of the universe?

Excepting existence for the sake of existence, probably not.

Practically, an atheist "believes" in no afterlife.

No. In many cases, like mine, it is not an active belief. Thus, I do not believe in afterlife, as opposed to believing in its absense.

I mean he is not just "unsure" wether there is an afterlife or not as in the case with the agnostic, rather, S/he usually lives his/her life as if there is no afterlife.

No to the second point. I do not live my life "as if there were no afterlife" - I just live my best and will die like the rest. The end. Except discussions like this one, I don't give the prospect of afterlife any thought at all, thus, it does not affect the way I live.

Likewise, when it comes to the purpose of the universe. An atheist usually lives his/her life as if the universe has ,at bottom, no design, no purpose, no good, no evil, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

No design: No. The universe is tsubject to natural laws. Within those laws, there are patterns. A culmination of such patterns may well be called design. And no, the word design does not presuppose an intelligent or even living (past or present) designer. No purpose: Outiside existence, probably correct. No good/evil: There is good and evil. They are highly subjective human constructs, but humans are a part of this universe. Indifference: Depends on the scale. If you are looking at our entire universe from the outside, then indeed it is completely indifferent to for instance me making this comment right now.

As agnostic, I am not sure if there is an afterlife and a plan/purpose behind the universe as I am not sure if there is not also.

Are you a true agnostic then..? Not leaning either way..?

I might have no problem with accepting atheism scientifically but emotionally I am wondering how atheist could continue his life if every thing is basically mechanical and there is no gap for mystery or a hope from beyond-self?

I just... Live. The "beyond self" is usually annoying anyways...

[leedan]

How about this?
The stuff of thought or everything the brain does, becomes a particular energy. It blends with a collective upon departure of its origin. Man has grown in intellect and population thus strengthening this energy. Notions and perceptions of deities or spirits have become possible simply because this stuff is knocking at the back door.

I am an atheist who perceives an afterlife.

[The Magic Pudding]

I am an atheist who perceives an afterlife.

I'm an atheist who believes our perception of life is largely illusory, perceiving an afterlife seems a bit wishful.

[Extropian]

I am an atheist who perceives an afterlife.

I'm an atheist who believes our perception of life is largely illusory, perceiving an afterlife seems a bit wishful.

Have you evidence to support the belief that our perception of life is largely illusory? Do you see the illusory aspect as inescapable and an immutable fact of life? Perhaps this question, taken to a logical conclusion, is posing the ultimate question............can we know everything?

Of course, you may see it as drawing a very long bow to relate these points.

Extropian

[The Magic Pudding]

I am an atheist who perceives an afterlife.

I'm an atheist who believes our perception of life is largely illusory, perceiving an afterlife seems a bit wishful.

Have you evidence to support the belief that our perception of life is largely illusory? Do you see the illusory aspect as inescapable and an immutable fact of life? Perhaps this question, taken to a logical conclusion, is posing the ultimate question............can we know everything?

Of course, you may see it as drawing a very long bow to relate these points.

Extropian

By illusory I was alluding to the shortcoming of our senses, this may have been a clumsy thing to do.

From a wiki

There are many species of bacteria and other microorganisms that live on or inside the healthy human body. In fact, 90% of the cells in (or on) a human body are microbes, by number[6] [7] (much less by mass or volume).

I've heard these sorts of figures before, are they accurate? Maybe, there's little chance I'll verify it.
I don't really think about myself any differently knowing this then I did previously.
We only see part of the electromagnetic spectrum and no doubt we miss or misinterpret a lot of that.  
The brain and conciousness is beginning to be understood, memory is fallible and probably doesn't works as most people imagine.
This stuff doesn't really bother me, I just get on with what I have.  
I have no idea by what sense I could perceive an afterlife, I very much doubt it's there.
If someone suggests they perceive an afterlife I suspect its just our fallible senses and brain to blame.

I don't think we can know everything, enough might be possible.

Do you see the illusory aspect as inescapable and an immutable fact of life?

Yes, you may be able to limit it a bit though.

I'm going to quote Clint Eastwood, (weren't expecting that were you?)

A man's got to know his limitations

I thinks Clint's advice is good.

[Extropian]

The Magic Pudding writes,
                                   By illusory I was alluding to the shortcoming of our senses, this may have been a clumsy thing to do. 

                                       Forgive my persistence if you would, but I can accept that you intended something similar and the "shortcomings of one's senses" presents no significant deviation.

                                       I would like to know then, what shortcomings do our senses have, what is their nature, and in addition, how do you know thay actually suffer any shortcomings?

                                       For shortcomings to exist, it must be presumed that there are manifestations beyond our senses and the technology that enhances those senses. What could these manifestations be and how do we know they exist?

                                       Perhaps you refer simply to new knowledge that previously had been beyond our ken, that vast realm of stuff we are yet to "know". But then, maybe not.

Biggles, Prime     

[Extropian]

The Magic Pudding writes further,

We only see part of the electromagnetic spectrum and no doubt we miss or misinterpret a lot of that.
Nothing "sees" the entire electromagnetic spectrum. We know its limits, its composition and much of its properties. Our senses, enhanced by technology, communicate this information to us. That we may not know everything about it yet is no valid reason to presume we never will know.

I don't think we can know everything, enough might be possible.

Why do you think so? Could it be just your personal incredulity or is there a sound basis for your opinion?

Quote
Do you see the illusory aspect as inescapable and an immutable fact of life?

Yes, you may be able to limit it a bit though.
I'm going to quote ClinEastwood, (weren't expecting that were you?)
A man's got to know his limitations
I thinks Clint's advice is goodt .

What evidence have you that we, as Homo sapiens sapiens, are condemned to an illusory existence as part of life?
I'd be the first to confess that our knowledge is limited to our senses and technology etc. But I'm most interested in why you must presume there is stuff we'll never know? How do you "know" that?

Would you define your understanding of the word ILLUSORY for me please?

Biggles, Prime             

[The Magic Pudding]

I would like to know then, what shortcomings do our senses have, what is their nature, and in addition, how do you know thay actually suffer any shortcomings?

Memory is one shortcoming.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects' propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party's introducing false facts into memory.4  Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image

For shortcomings to exist, it must be presumed that there are manifestations beyond our senses and the technology that enhances those senses. What could these manifestations be and how do we know they exist?

I'll avoid the word "manifestations" and just say there are things our senses don't accurately or fully perceive.  Some are revealed by technology.  Gravity isn't fully understood, the nature of the Earth say 50kms down, is still in doubt I think.  

Some people may understand time, I don't really.  A day where the sun comes up goes down and nears rising again is the basis of time for me.  The idea of slowing the time I experience by travelling near the speed of light doesn't really influence my life, it makes for interesting stories though.  

We know there are things we don't perceive directly because we see their influence on other things, gravity for Newton, dark matter perhaps for his successors.  Dark matter may not exist, I'm in no position to judge and it doesn't make much difference to me anyway.  

If someone claims they perceive vibes from an after life I would just dismiss it as crap.  I have observed people believing superstitions, because it's fun, it makes life less scary, it makes them feel important.  It seems born of a desire for more than an a brief scared animal existence.

Perhaps you refer simply to new knowledge that previously had been beyond our ken, that vast realm of stuff we are yet to "know". But then, maybe not.

Some things previously unknown, some perhaps known now to science but not necessarily known to the average person.  And then you've got those remaining known and unknown unknowns.

Nothing "sees" the entire electromagnetic spectrum. We know its limits, its composition and much of its properties. Our senses, enhanced by technology, communicate this information to us. That we may not know everything about it yet is no valid reason to presume we never will know.

MP: I don't think we can know everything, enough might be possible.

Why do you think so? Could it be just your personal incredulity or is there a sound basis for your opinion?

Do you see the illusory aspect as inescapable and an immutable fact of life?

MP: Yes, you may be able to limit it a bit though.
I'm going to quote ClinEastwood, (weren't expecting that were you?)
A man's got to know his limitations
I thinks Clint's advice is good .

What evidence have you that we, as Homo sapiens sapiens, are condemned to an illusory existence as part of life?
I'd be the first to confess that our knowledge is limited to our senses and technology etc. But I'm most interested in why you must presume there is stuff we'll never know? How do you "know" that?

Everything would equate to the infinite for me, I can't conceive of such a thing.
Enough may include recognising the limits of our memories and not convicting an innocent, or knowing enough about the universe not to create gods.

Would you define your understanding of the word ILLUSORY for me please?

This definition of illusion works for me: "An erroneous mental representation"

[Extropian]

  
The Magic Pudding writes; Memory is one shortcoming.

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
Quote
Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects' propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party's introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image.

Extropian replies; What you write is true insofaras it is relevant. People can be convinced by others to believe all sort of bunkum and equally to behave in the strangest most despicable ways. This is manifest in anything from commercial advertising to the evangelising of religions to the rantings of Goebellsian propaganda. As such, it is a direct assault on our minds and is not filtered through our five senses. A different part of our brain is being influenced. Every day we read in groups such as this some interlocutor trying to convince another that black is white.

Your quote in bold-face above is a classic demonstration of the scientific method showing how we can be deceived which in fact demonstrates that in applying the scientific method we can identify the deceit, the propaganda, the nonsensical. It's true that our memories are imperfect and may vary vastly from individual to individual but in the end the scientific method is the arbiter and a conclusion closest to the truth will emerge. The one quandary we suffer gladly is that so far we are unable to honestly proclaim that any conclusion is the full and final truth. BUT, should we, in contradiction of this glad suffering, choose to believe unquestioningly that this is a permanent, eternal condition?  

The Magic Pudding writes;........there are things our senses don't accurately or fully perceive. Some are revealed by technology. Gravity isn't fully understood,

Extropian replies; I rejoice in granting you this. Our senses are not infallible. But, recognising this, what would you prefer to be our approach to the future conduct of science.........[1] Burden our minds with the notion that all is but a feeble and corrupt facade of the truth? Or [2] Penetrate every cranny of Nature's mysterious ways fearlessly and admitting of no limit to our seeking of knowledge?

The Magic Pudding writes; How gravity is propagated is indeed still a mystery.

Extropian replies; Would you prefer it remain a mystery forever so humankind can wallow in self-doubt and appease that condition with fantasies about the supernatural? Or would a continued search for an explanation, admitting of no defeat, be a more beneficial course of action?

The Magic Pudding writes; We know there are things we don't perceive directly because we see their influence on other things, gravity for Newton, dark matter perhaps for his successors. Dark matter may not exist, I'm in no position to judge and it doesn't make much difference to me anyway.

Extropian replies; I note a tendency toward indifference here and can appreciate that not everyone considers pursuing questions to their limits to be a fulfilling exercise.

I suppose the ultimate issue as I see it emerges in the observation that simply by our conduct of science we are automatically taking the view that nothing will remain a mystery forever, that for as long as Homo sapiens sapiens exercises his/her independent intellect nothing is sacred or hidden beyond our understanding. Thus the question of where the division between the natural and the supernatural is resolved to a metaphysical concept that religious faith can never admit to exist.

Only by defining the supernatural as unknowable can the supernatural exist. Humankind, by its very nature, will never admit that anything is unknowable. We can't conduct science upon any other basis. Never, never, will a morsel of supernaturality become natural to us with a tag attached stating that it had once been supernatural.

Lastly, we face a question for all humankind that goes directly to what we can ultimately achieve.............Is the chemical combination of our DNA infinitely diverse? Will humankind eventually reverse our Universe's ultimate entropy, the cold death of the Universe? Religious faith falls by the wayside a long time before this kind of scenario approaches. As I see the issue, without us the death of everything is inevitable. But of course, we must allow that ET may entertain a different view. Should we then hopefully and prayerfully rely on ET to do the hard work or should we take on the task ourselves?

I'm inclined toward the latter............but that's just me.



 

[Asmodean]

Could you please try using the quote system, please..? 

[Extropian]

Could you please try using the quote system, please..?  

I'm a regular contributor to around 6 groups and a member of twice that number [some of these latter are almost inactive by any measure]. None has complained about my method of posting.

It seems that management and a few supporters have difficulty making sense of the method I resort to sometimes. If I knew how to use the quote system in place here I might be persuaded to go that way. But I don't and I'm of a demeanour that disinclines me from taking the trouble to do so. It is a puzzlement to me exactly why management is so grotesquely committed to uniformity. Do the rules of membership demand it? No other group, of which I am a member, does.

If the membership in general finds my posts unintelligible then kindly advise me. If my contributions are unworthy and fail to meet the esoteric demands of management kindly advise me. If the layout of my posts arouses high moral dudgeon and offends management's notion of good order and freedom of expression kindly advise me.

If it is necessary to the continuing prosperity of HAF that I depart from your excellent group then kindly advise me. No single member can be more important than the group. So if your decision is to dispense with my contributions kindly advise me. All I ask is that you allow me to depart voluntarily.