News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Help Defining my View

Started by jeff1324, November 11, 2010, 06:37:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

jeff1324

Hello everyone.  I'm new to this forum, as I was hoping some of you could help me define my religious/world views.  I've grown up not thinking a ton about religion, afterlife, or any of these exestential thoughts we all have, but lately (the last 6-12 months) I have constantly been thinking more and more about it.  At the moment, I reject the idea that there is a "man in the sky" or any kind of deity watching over me or controlling me.  I can't say there is nothing though.  For a while I thought I was an agnostic, but I want to say I'm an atheist, as I don't believe in a god.  At the same time though, I feel as there could be some kind of "higher power" or spirituality, just not a GOD.  I thought maybe this would atheistic agnosticism, but it seems as if that has a different meaning.  What do I call myself?  I'm very interested in atheist and even many anti-theist views, but I can't say that there is necessarily nothing before or after life.  Thanks guys!

Thumpalumpacus

Welcome to the forum.  I'd think "undecided" might fit?
Illegitimi non carborundum.

jeff1324

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Welcome to the forum.  I'd think "undecided" might fit?

Thanks! Well I'm pretty decided, even though it sounds unsure.  Like I don't believe in a god or gods, but I'm not rejecting that there is more than we are seeing.  Sorry if I'm being ambiguous or vague; it's hard to explain my thoughts.  I'm agnostic in that I don't think that anyone can be sure about anything, but I don't think there is a god... hopefully that makes more sense.

Thumpalumpacus

It makes sense to me, in the sense that I am an agnostic atheist.  (Note, I am not what I call a "hard" agnostic -- one who believes we cannot know whether there is or isn't a god or gods.  I am "soft" -- we don't now know, but it is conceivable that we might learn one way or the other).  I do not know whether or not there exists any god, but the "evidence" is underwhelming.

I myself reject any sensible or meaningful afterlife, or extra-somatic mind, or incorporeal soul, not only for a dearth of evidence, but also because I have no recollection of consciousness before I was born; and also because all evidence indicates that brain operation is intimately tied up with consciousness.  The fact that consciousness can be altered or extinguished by the modification of brain chemistry, or physiology, and the fact that certain areas of the brain are tied to certain mental processes across our species, indicates to me that the brain is the material substrate for consciousness, and that it is required for consciousness to occur.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

jeff1324

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It makes sense to me, in the sense that I am an agnostic atheist.  (Note, I am not what I call a "hard" agnostic -- one who believes we cannot know whether there is or isn't a god or gods.  I am "soft" -- we don't now know, but it is conceivable that we might learn one way or the other).  I do not know whether or not there exists any god, but the "evidence" is underwhelming.

I myself reject any sensible or meaningful afterlife, or extra-somatic mind, or incorporeal soul, not only for a dearth of evidence, but also because I have no recollection of consciousness before I was born; and also because all evidence indicates that brain operation is intimately tied up with consciousness.  The fact that consciousness can be altered or extinguished by the modification of brain chemistry, or physiology, and the fact that certain areas of the brain are tied to certain mental processes across our species, indicates to me that the brain is the material substrate for consciousness, and that it is required for consciousness to occur.

That's interesting.  I feel closest to your views of the ones I've read.  I think I'm just having trouble accepting the semantics of the word "god" or "gods"... I don't think there is a knowledgable soul/being that is watching over or controlling things, but I'm not completley denying the idea that there is some kind of "power".  That's what is most confusing me, because no definitions talk about things other than a deity/deities.  I'm not an agnostic as I'm not questioning this; I don't think there is a concious creater or perrenial figure.  I'm more agnostic as I don't know what there is--not relating to god.

Thumpalumpacus

In that case, following the evidence, without outstripping it, seems to be the wisest course.  At least, it's the one I follow.
Illegitimi non carborundum.

Gawen

Quote from: "jeff1324"Hello everyone.  
Hiya
QuoteI feel as there could be some kind of "higher power" or spirituality, just not a GOD.
There could be, of course. When you find good evidence of said higher power, let me know, will ya? Otherwise, treat said higher power as you do religion or gods until you do.
Or...

You can be an atheist pertaining to religions and/or gods and agnostic to anything otherwise 'spiritual'.
The essence of the mind is not in what it thinks, but how it thinks. Faith is the surrender of our mind; of reason and our skepticism to put all our trust or faith in someone or something that has no good evidence of itself. That is a sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith is not.
"When you fall, I will be there" - Floor

ablprop

Hi,

Here's what helps me.

Everything is real. Everything. That includes thought.

We know now that thoughts are real things. We've seen them. We have machines that can see what's happening inside the thinking brain. And there's no indication, none at all, that there's any sort of new physics going on. Consciousness, it looks more and more, is an emergent property of the brain, and the brain is just matter interacting with other matter.

Now imagine that you see some effect that at first looks supernatural. It could be anything - iron rusting in the air, radioactive decay, water droplets forming on the outside of a cold glass. All of those are indications that the world is deeper, more mysterious than it first appears. And all, in the end, have perfectly natural (though no less astounding) explanations.

Now that we know that thought is real, why should interactions within our minds be any different? If something (or someone) really is communicating with our thoughts, why would we believe it is anything but a natural (if at first deeply mysterious) interaction? If that's the case, the supernatural becomes natural when we understand it better.

I don't of course know that there will be natural explanations, but I've been down this road many, many times and every time, the natural explanation has won. Why should my mind be any different?

fazFwQo83

I wouldn't presume to tell you who you are, but I can say for myself that names and labels rarely fully describe an individual and unless you absolutely subscribe to the dictionary definition, there can be many interpretations of what it means to be atheist or agnostic or any other term you may identify with.

I try not to label myself as any one particular thing. For example, I find myself drawn to Frank Sinatra and Louis Prima as much as 2Pac and Immortal Technique. I think even if the god hypothesis is silly, the universe is a far more mysterious place than we ever imagined and I enjoy learning more about it every day. The religious establishment seems to take this for granted and instead focus on what supposedly comes after this life. We are living in a time of major discovery and scientific exploration, but we (as a species) are still in the process of letting go of the magical sky daddy of our past.

Who knows what we'll discover in the future, and so my world-view is one of the observer. Open-minded, free to change my mind as new evidence becomes available and able to admit when my position is unfounded or even just plain wrong.