Atheism as simply another belief system

[kcballer21]

I've heard many people refer to atheism as simply another belief system, as if it requires faith of some sort. Has anyone else experienced this?
This is difficult for me to understand. I view atheism as a place you end up when all else fails.

As for myself, since I have experienced nothing that leads me to believe in (have faith in) anything other than the physical, I feel that atheism is not necessarily a choice, but the only option (that must be how everyone feels?).

My position would be that I accept (not believe in) atheism, given everything I have experienced. Let me know what you think.

 

[NateTG]

I've heard many people refer to atheism as simply another belief system, as if it requires faith of some sort. Has anyone else experienced this?
This is difficult for me to understand. I view atheism as a place you end up when all else fails.

An atheist is somone who believes that there is no god. In my experience, this belief is invariably the result of faith.

The position that you describe may be closer to agnosticism. Practically speaking agnosticism eventually leads the postion that all this god talk is stupid, and there are better things to do than debating the existence of god.

 

[kcballer21]

An atheist is somone who believes that there is no god. In my experience, this belief is invariably the result of faith.

The problem with that is I don't believe the discussion of God is stupid, I try to be open to others opinions and I like to think that under the right conditions my position could change.

I think my problem is semantics. When I think of a 'belief' I think of "blind faith" in an absolute. Whenever something claims an absolute, that is when it loses credibility (for me). This is just another reason I would be an atheist. When something is beyond questioning I don't buy it. Atheism is not beyond questioning, is it? If it is I guess I am something else...

 

[olde drunk]

I've heard many people refer to atheism as simply another belief system, as if it requires faith of some sort. Has anyone else experienced this?
This is difficult for me to understand. I view atheism as a place you end up when all else fails.

As for myself, since I have experienced nothing that leads me to believe in (have faith in) anything other than the physical, I feel that atheism is not necessarily a choice, but the only option (that must be how everyone feels?).

My position would be that I accept (not believe in) atheism, given everything I have experienced. Let me know what you think.

i am not trying to be funny, but is your thinking process 'physical'? if not, then there is 'something' other than the physical.

who care what god is or isn't; it is all a matter of belief. the important thing is to keep an open mind to all possibilities and work with the ones that seem most useful at a given time.

whatever the full answer is will be known in due time.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[kcballer21]

i am not trying to be funny, but is your thinking process 'physical'? if not, then there is 'something' other than the physical.

What is not physical about my thinking process?

who care what god is or isn't; it is all a matter of belief. the important thing is to keep an open mind to all possibilities and work with the ones that seem most useful at a given time.

I can agree with that.

whatever the full answer is will be known in due time.

That sounds great but who says so? Based on what? That's the kind of absolutism I speak of, as in you 'know' the answer will be known.

 

[homology]

atheism: a-theism...w/o god. Atheism, to sum atheists is a belief system. Atheism to other folks may be the 'absence' of one.

As an extreme example consider a child raised in isolation to religion. This child could very grow into an adult with no belief in any god(s), he/she would be an atheist and this would not be a result any belief/disbelief but rather an absence of belief.

Likewise, as a less extreme example, I consider my own atheism as simply a lack of belief. I simply lack any belief in religious systems/etc. This lack of a belief is best characterized by a-theism, i.e. without belief in god.

Kevin

 

[FZ+]

An atheist is somone who believes that there is no god.

No it isn't.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

 

[NateTG]

No it isn't.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

Depends on who you're talking to, I guess. Stupid english.

From the same page:

Words are slippery things, and language is inexact. Beware of assuming that you can work out someone's philosophical point of view simply from the fact that she calls herself an atheist or an agnostic. For example, many people use agnosticism to mean what is referred to here as "weak atheism", and use the word "atheism" only when referring to "strong atheism".

 

[balkan]

i guess I'm agnostic...
although i have never heard one single rational argument for the existence of a god, i am open to the idea.. i could never make myself join a religion before i heard a rational argument that convinced me...
i'm likewise open to the bhuddist belief system, which i think in all matters is much more wise than the monotheistic religions such as islam or christianity and the heap of nature religions and old religions that i know of...
that doesn't mean i could become a bhuddist either without some sort of reason...

if there was one god and only one, then i think that this should be indicated by the existence of only one religion, but since this is not the case, who am i to choose when none of them offer anything but blind followship?

 

[force5]

i guess I'm agnostic...
although i have never heard one single rational argument for the existence of a god, i am open to the idea.. i could never make myself join a religion before i heard a rational argument that convinced me...
i'm likewise open to the bhuddist belief system, which i think in all matters is much more wise than the monotheistic religions such as islam or christianity and the heap of nature religions and old religions that i know of...
that doesn't mean i could become a bhuddist either without some sort of reason...

if there was one god and only one, then i think that this should be indicated by the existence of only one religion, but since this is not the case, who am i to choose when none of them offer anything but blind followship?

Amen.

Just my thoughts?

 

[Janitor]

I was listening to Christian radio this morning, and I heard the claim made that atheism requires more faith than a belief in God does. There wasn't really any real followup to that claim, so I don't know exactly what the thinking there is. If I hear more on the topic some other time, I will try to repeat it here.

For me the belief that there fails to exist a deity who desires a personal relationship with me is really not a matter of faith at all. If such a deity existed, it could speak to me with a literal voice inside my head in such a way as to make it absolutely clear to me that it could only be the voice of God, not something my own limited mind was coming up with and then falsely attributing to a God. But I have been on this Earth for decades, allowing lots of opportunity for such an event to occur, and it simply has not come to pass.

 

[quartodeciman]

We all have "faith" that things (at least most things) will work out as we expect.
Just what we pin that faith on differs.

 

[yesicanread]

I was listening to Christian radio this morning, and I heard the claim made that atheism requires more faith than a belief in God does. There wasn't really any real followup to that claim, so I don't know exactly what the thinking there is. If I hear more on the topic some other time, I will try to repeat it here.

For me the belief that there fails to exist a deity who desires a personal relationship with me is really not a matter of faith at all. If such a deity existed, it could speak to me with a literal voice inside my head in such a way as to make it absolutely clear to me that it could only be the voice of God, not something my own limited mind was coming up with and then falsely attributing to a God. But I have been on this Earth for decades, allowing lots of opportunity for such an event to occur, and it simply has not come to pass.

Maybe because God's perimeter or stomping grounds or different that your perimerter and stomping grounds.

Stomp enough in a lion cage and you'll meet a lion. It seems that you haven't stomped enough in God's perimeter to meet God.You expect him to make your perimeter his and talk to you there.

 

[loseyourname]

Stomp for 3 seconds in a lion's cage and you'll meet a lion.

 

[homology]

I would say that we, in this thread, also have different definitions of faith. I would say that faith is unsubstatiated belief. That is why the unshaking faith of an individual is somewhat impressive. There is no 'reason' to believe in what they do however, they are convinced of it.

I would claim that I have no faith. The strength of any belief of mine is proportional to likelihood that it will occur. For example I do not have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, however I expect that it will, based on the previous thousands of sunrises (and some knowledge of physics ).

In summary, in this thread, we must be careful to distinguish faith, which is unsubstatiated belief, and justified belief (whether through much empirical evidence, induction or deduction in the case of formal systems.)

Kevin

 

[Vast]

I was listening to Christian radio this morning, and I heard the claim made that atheism requires more faith than a belief in God does. There wasn't really any real followup to that claim, so I don't know exactly what the thinking there is. If I hear more on the topic some other time, I will try to repeat it here.

That’s an interesting thought, because while believing in God requires one to blindly accept the existence of God without any evidence, having no belief in God requires we erase the belief we’ve been programmed with.

IMO, we’ve all been programmed to believe in God in some manner or another, and the example used of a child growing up isolated from religion is essentially a child isolated from all current knowledge. Of course you could bring up a child teaching them God doesn’t exist, but how would you deal with a world in which the majority believe in God? Isn’t that an overwhelming position? If the majority believes in God, and suddenly you come along and say you don’t believe in God, you’re immediately considered a lost soul or something.

I wouldn’t say atheism requires more faith, because although you could be considered an atheist, it’s only because of a category we’ve been put in for those that have disbelief in the concept of God.

I can tell you from personal experience it’s been very hard to erase the belief in God.

 

[homology]

IMO, we’ve all been programmed to believe in God in some manner or another, and the example used of a child growing up isolated from religion is essentially a child isolated from all current knowledge. Of course you could bring up a child teaching them God doesn’t exist, but how would you deal with a world in which the majority believe in God? Isn’t that an overwhelming position? If the majority believes in God, and suddenly you come along and say you don’t believe in God, you’re immediately considered a lost soul or something.

I'm not sure that this is true. A christian child learn all about the many different religions of the world and reject everyone of them except his/her own flavor of christianity. We are all aware of Zeus and Hera but I don't think any of us ever really believed in them. A child could be raised in this fashion, aware that people have and do believe in a myriad of traditions. All of those traditions could be taught on the level of greek mythology, i.e. interesting stories but little more.

The majority (at least in US) believes in god, and I've certainly been identified as a 'lost soul', but so be it.

I can tell you from personal experience it’s been very hard to erase the belief in God.

For me it just took some time. However, my religious upbringing was not terribly strong, a catholic family that had fallen out of habit. It took me a couple of years to really scrub my brain clean. But I can honestly say that I can only think of god(s) or goddess(es) as stories or traditions now. However, I understand that this process will be different for everyone.

I think this thread is going along pretty well given the topic!

Kevin

 

[quartodeciman]

Bertrand Russell wrote a piece comparing and contrasting freethinkers who emerged from protestant christianity and freethinkers who emerged from catholic christianity. He noted that the ex-protestants tended to retain little nostalgia for their church and ,while they might personally indicate their starting point, they tended to operate subsequently as complete individuals.

On the other hand, he noted that ex-catholics tend to miss their community and culture, emulating aspects of the church and readily joining and functioning within substitute organizations (for example, the freemasons).

 

[kcballer21]

I was listening to Christian radio this morning, and I heard the claim made that atheism requires more faith than a belief in God does.

I think this stems from the fact that the religious believe atheist are "risking" an eternity in hell by living the way they do. They think that atheists have a lot more to lose by not believing in god. The fact of the matter is that a true atheist sees this as pretty ridiculous; Just as a christian would scoff at the notion that we are all going to hell for not being muslim, an atheist finds the threat of hell baseless and without substance.

 

[yesicanread]

In summary, in this thread, we must be careful to distinguish faith, which is unsubstatiated belief, and justified belief (whether through much empirical evidence, induction or deduction in the case of formal systems.)

Kevin

I think there is a difference between faith + fear. Not faith + belief.

Faith in the justice system is not filled with fear. It can inspire pride.
Faith in the unlawful inspires fear.

For instance. Here's a proof to test.
The unlawful is, a action the law controls.
Now, since this is reasoned, I'll use the triangle inequality theorem to base the above statements I made on faith + fear.

1.) Unlawful < Unlawful + Law = Triangle inequality theorem.
2.) Triangle inequality theorem = Triangle inequality theorem
3.) # 1.) = # 1.)

Given the fact that if you have faith in the unlawful, you feel unconfident. Your scared, afraid of the consequences, etc...

Now if you have faith in the Law. You feel inspired, Unafraid, happy, and peaceful.

Belief in the law is the same as faith in the law. You believe the full story, not a fragment of it.

Discuss.

 

[homology]

I think there is a difference between faith + fear. Not faith + belief.

Faith in the justice system is not filled with fear. It can inspire pride.
Faith in the unlawful inspires fear.

[\QUOTE]

I'm not sure I understand what faith in justice is? Do you mean that you have faith that it is morally right, effective or such? What is the 'unlawful'? Is it the criminal element of society is it the nature of 'evil'?

I also think that 'faith+belief' is redundant, faith is a form of belief.

Kevin

 

[yesicanread]

I think there is a difference between faith + fear. Not faith + belief.

Faith in the justice system is not filled with fear. It can inspire pride.
Faith in the unlawful inspires fear.

I'm not sure I understand what faith in justice is? Do you mean that you have faith that it is morally right, effective or such? What is the 'unlawful'? Is it the criminal element of society is it the nature of 'evil'?

I also think that 'faith+belief' is redundant, faith is a form of belief.

Kevin

I think your asking me to give you understanding for the wisdom of the text you quoted me.

I also think that the wisdom of said text is understandable, or else it wouldn't be wise, and couldn't be understood.

Maybe I can only say wise words, and nothing to make you understand them.

I was pointing out that faith + belief is in the law. Which when you follow the diagram of the Triangle inequality theorem, makes beautiful sense.

Obviously you didn't take the time to reason the provided math.

Pity.

 

[olde drunk]

Define god

IMHO, god is 'all that is'. a panteist view that the sum is greater than the sum of it's parts.

if you individually redefine the term you are not stuck with the traditional understanding. after all, an all just and all merciful, etc god is a counterdiction.

to me, most people accept the norm out of fear (fear of losing heaven or going to hell); atheists, on the other hand, want to prove that they aren't affraid and prove it by denying any form of higher power. I suspect that the answer is somewhere in between.

my god doesn't care if i believe or not. he doesn't care if i obey some esoteric rules. s/he/it wants me to be me and to enjoy the consequences of my thoughts and actions. oops, i just found hell, lol.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[selfAdjoint]

1.) Unlawful < Unlawful + Law = Triangle inequality theorem.
2.) Triangle inequality theorem = Triangle inequality theorem
3.) # 1.) = # 1.)

This isn't math. Even if there is the ghost of an idea, you would have to justify applying the triangle inequality to abstract iseas like faith and law. And you have misstated the triangle inequality, for metric distances |a| and |b| we have |a+b| \le |a| + |b|. If we restore the less than or equal you left out, the relation between fear and law becomes trivial.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

The position that you describe may be closer to agnosticism. Practically speaking agnosticism eventually leads the postion that all this god talk is stupid, and there are better things to do than debating the existence of god.

dead right.

 

[yesicanread]

Why do I have to include the less than or equal too ?

In my geometry lesson, there is only less than ? Where does this less than or equal too fit in.

You said yourself. How would the theorem fit, then you stated it differently that my lessons.

Why ?

In simple english. So I can understand your brilliant reason for this, please.

 

[yesicanread]

The triangle inequality theorem.
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/55276.html

x + y > z
y + z > x
x + z > y

I don't see your reasoning there.

 

[Locrian]

I was listening to Christian radio this morning, and I heard the claim made that atheism requires more faith than a belief in God does.

Hah yea. Christians get crazy when I tell them I'm an atheist, something I avoid if possible. The difference between believing there is no god and not believing in a god (such as it is) is lost on them. The difference between faith in a religious sense and faith in a secular one is lost on them (which is odd considering they of all people should be able to define it). The concept of accepting only what you have measurable reason to believe is true is lost on them.

They set out to prove I am, in fact, not an atheist. In the end, since I have no religious beliefs, they cannot place me anywhere else. One would think this would convince them to stop trying, but quite the contrary, their failure induces yet greater resolve.

This is my first peak into the Philosophy forum. The first few threads haven't seemed very philosophical, really.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Metaphysics is better. A little.

 

[Fliption]

In summary, in this thread, we must be careful to distinguish faith, which is unsubstatiated belief, and justified belief (whether through much empirical evidence, induction or deduction in the case of formal systems.)

I would say that the difference between unsubstantiated belief and justified belief is a bit egocentric. I don't believe a christian would say their beliefs are unjustified. They just happen to have means to justify other than "empiricism, induction and deduction".

Anytime you spend time talking about words and language in a philosophy forum things always get messy like this.

 

[homology]

I would say that the difference between unsubstantiated belief and justified belief is a bit egocentric. I don't believe a christian would say their beliefs are unjustified. They just happen to have means to justify other than "empiricism, induction and deduction".

Anytime you spend time talking about words and language in a philosophy forum things always get messy like this.

Sure, by unjustified I didn't mean to diminish the serious nature of faith. I meant to draw a distinction. I believe that if I step off from my roof I will fall, I would say that this is a justified belief, given experience and physics. In fact everything points towards this conclusion. However, God/religion is more subtle. One could say that its "all around us" but not so explicitely as gravity. To believe in God you have to put yourself on the line. You can't test any hypotheses, you can't create a coherent theory which will yield predictions that can be tested experimentally. You have to belief without confirmation, or at least without independent confirmation (I say this to circumnavigate personal religious revelation which is inaccessible to the outside observer).

Hmmm, I hope I was clear enough, let me know if I'm not. But you're right, playing games with words like this does get very sticky.

Kevin

 

[notal33t]

ex atheist

Hah yea. Christians get crazy when I tell them I'm an atheist, something I avoid if possible. The difference between believing there is no god and not believing in a god (such as it is) is lost on them. The difference between faith in a religious sense and faith in a secular one is lost on them (which is odd considering they of all people should be able to define it). The concept of accepting only what you have measurable reason to believe is true is lost on them.

They set out to prove I am, in fact, not an atheist. In the end, since I have no religious beliefs, they cannot place me anywhere else. One would think this would convince them to stop trying, but quite the contrary, their failure induces yet greater resolve.

This is my first peak into the Philosophy forum. The first few threads haven't seemed very philosophical, really.

---
Dont be so sure all Christians get crazy!
It's like this.. How can one argue that a "dark empty" room is full of light and life, unless one has the eyes to see the ultraviolet or infrared, and the willingness to explore it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

---
Dont be so sure all Christians get crazy!
It's like this.. How can one argue that a "dark empty" room is full of light and life, unless one has the eyes to see the ultraviolet or infrared, and the willingness to explore it?

If somebody claims the dark room is full of UV and IR I would expect them to be able to prove it with some technique that would not only convince me, but in theory would convince anybody. Can your god-assertion do that?

 

[Locrian]

---
Dont be so sure all Christians get crazy!
It's like this.. How can one argue that a "dark empty" room is full of light and life, unless one has the eyes to see the ultraviolet or infrared, and the willingness to explore it?

Well the heat on my skin from the infrared and the cataracts on my eyes from the UV might be a good clue. Your suggestion that I don't have the willingness (or haven't in the past) to explore this topic is uninformed and presumptive.

 

[Janitor]

Maybe because God's perimeter or stomping grounds or different that your perimerter and stomping grounds.

Stomp enough in a lion cage and you'll meet a lion. It seems that you haven't stomped enough in God's perimeter to meet God.You expect him to make your perimeter his and talk to you there. - yesicanread

I am not sure I am properly understanding your point. Would you mind fleshing it out a bit more?

Another thing that might help me to understand your viewpoint is for you to answer a question. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that a nice even 500 million native Americans lived and died in the New World continents of North and South America prior to the arrival of Columbus and his fellow Catholics in 1492. How many of those native Americans do you think were told by God about Jewish ritual law, or the crucifixion of Christ, or rules on bowing down toward Mecca and praying a certain number of times per day? (Pick whichever of these beliefs are essential to your particular faith.) If you don't have any sort of gut feel for the correct number, would you at least kindly pick one of the following answers as being plausible to you:

(a) zero
(b) more than zero, but less than 500 million
(c) all five hundred million

 

[yesicanread]

I am not sure I am properly understanding your point. Would you mind fleshing it out a bit more?

How many of those native Americans do you think were told by God about Jewish ritual law, or the crucifixion of Christ, or rules on bowing down toward Mecca and praying a certain number of times per day?

(a) zero
(b) more than zero, but less than 500 million
(c) all five hundred million

I will answer your question with a simplification of Quantum Mechanics. The uncertainty principle. And then rationalize the west Indian religious mindset.

I will explain QM. And a Omnesient person/character.

1.) A plane is composed of a triangle. Or three planar(on a plane) point, that aren't formin a line(colinear), form a "Plane".

2.) In this triangle is the triangle inequality theorem. So it follows.

3.) This theorem is composed as Q = Action < Q + A = 2Reaction

4.) Triangle inequality theorem = Triangle inequality theorem. So, since we act without knowing the answer, we will always be less than the Q & A.

5.) 1.) through 5.) explain the indetermination in Quantum Mechanics.

6.) Q & A existed before we asked a Q.

7.) Q = Q. So who thought before us ? And also knew the Answer to thoughts questions ?

8.) Therefore QM will never provide a whole Q&A, & the closer we get to one the closer someone else is to seeing the Q.

Check it out. 1 through 8. I'm not being religious in my points. Just deductive.

Read points 1 through 8, and tell me if you understand.

Now. To my understanding. Jesus is the Christ ? Yes, No, Maybe ? Ke.

Then in my QM simplification, he would be less than the remaining parts of the trinity, when he was made sin. And equal with the triangle inequalty theorem equaling itself. So he's not just less that the trinity. It's the books story. Ke ? I don't think this is new news.

Now. The west Indian conceived of the Great Spirit. Spirit is breath, in some translations.

Now a person who is questioning a stronger person, maybe they can't relate to that strong person. So calling him a great breath/cardio, would fit.

So the relation to the QM simplification of the uncertainty principle, seen in the new testament's books about Jesus. Is seen in west Indian belief of the great spirit. A person who's strength and etc, etc, is his alone.

The west Indian raises smoke from pipes, and dances with images of powerful creatures. A depiction of spirit/breath, and honor of the great spirit.

Now. If you have a spirit of some strengt you hang out in those places. Columbus spirit or ship wind that was his breath, had a perimeter that landed him on America, so did the vikings.

Now if the Janitor, or whoever didn't speak to God. sdoes he expect God to make his perimeter with that perimeter spirit, the Janitors perimeter with his spirit/breath ?

In the old testament of the bible, he said the preisthood isn't earthly, but a image of heavenly things, or a heavenly church/perimeter. His stompin grounds.

Now tell me where I'm wrong in this post, specific line specific part of that line, and in simple terms that I can understand your sentences.

Edit. Here's the funny face. Wait.

 

[Janitor]

Now tell me where I'm wrong in this post, specific line specific part of that line- yesicanread

Ummmm, all I can say is your post reminds me of the Donc Dieu existe repondez! account of Euler-vs-Diderot.

 

[yesicanread]

Ummmm, all I can say is your post reminds me of the Donc Dieu existe repondez! account of Euler-vs-Diderot.

Please tell this story here. Or how this post remines you of that thread. :shy:

 

[Janitor]

Please tell this story here.- yesicanread

When I was a pup, Pa was in a book-of-the-month club. It may have been something offered through Popular Science magazine, which he subscribed to. Anyway, one of the books sent to him was called something like Of Men and Mathematics. It had a chapter on the prolific mathematician Euler. A brief story in that chapter was about a debate on the existence of God. Euler wasn't able to convince Diderot that God does exist, so to bring the debate to a close, Euler took advantage of Diderot's lack of knowledge about mathematics by writing some scary-looking formula down, and then saying (in French) to Diderot: "Therefore God exists. Respond!" (I was taking Latin at the time, and I remember being fascinated by the thought that 'Dieu' must have evolved from the Latin word for God, 'Deus,' from which English also gets words like Deism and Deity.)

 

[notal33t]

Can I ever feel the heat..

Well the heat on my skin from the infrared and the cataracts on my eyes from the UV might be a good clue. Your suggestion that I don't have the willingness (or haven't in the past) to explore this topic is uninformed and presumptive.

---
As I see it, there was no ad hominem accusation of being uninformed or neither was there presumption on my part. I merely stated the possibility of a source of 'spiritual', UV and IR. The exploration of that spectrum is subject to free will. As to 'clues' one might consider several millions of incidents describing this illumination as being worth debate!

 

[balkan]

i like the way this thread makes me feel...

 

[Entropy]

Is there a God or isn't there? How can you exist without a creator? For me it is simple: some being outside of the constrants of physics had to create the universe. How can something emerge from nothing, how can in one minute there be no physical laws, then there be physical laws without some being who in his self is beyond any constrants?

This is how I know God exists. But I guess other people just don't see 'creation' in the same light that I do.

 

[balkan]

well how can this "being" exist? who made him? if he was there all along, when did he decide to build a universe?

a good theory amongst big bang people is, that there are more universes like this, and like reactions in a gas, they appear and die out all over the place... in order for this theory to work, the universe will have to collapse at some point and go back to being pre-big bang matter...
thus, this matter could have existed infinitely...

 

[Dissident Dan]

How can something emerge from nothing, how can in one minute there be no physical laws, then there be physical laws without some being who in his self is beyond any constrants?

Did you ever think about the fact that free will would require something from nothing?

 

[olde drunk]

Did you ever think about the fact that free will would require something from nothing?

Dan: have you ever considered the fact that you always were and always will be? hence, no beginning.

time is a man made measure. without it, we just are. imho, we are in the process of seeking value fulfillment. can you concieve of anytime that you didn't exist?

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[JD]

Dan: have you ever considered the fact that you always were and always will be? hence, no beginning.

time is a man made measure. without it, we just are. imho, we are in the process of seeking value fulfillment. can you concieve of anytime that you didn't exist?

love&peace,
olde drunk

That's a thought to take with you on your journeys.

 

[JD]

Is there a God or isn't there? How can you exist without a creator? For me it is simple: some being outside of the constrants of physics had to create the universe. How can something emerge from nothing, how can in one minute there be no physical laws, then there be physical laws without some being who in his self is beyond any constrants?

This is how I know God exists. But I guess other people just don't see 'creation' in the same light that I do.

Perhaps the point at which we understand the laws of physics is the point beyond which only contemplation functions, if anything at all can function in a sense we understand (at present).

 

[kcballer21]

time is a man made measure. without it, we just are. imho, we are in the process of seeking value fulfillment. can you concieve of anytime that you didn't exist?

Is that a trick question? I cannot conceive of a time when the material which I am made of didn't exist (given the incomplete theories of the origin of the universe) but I can conceive of a time when my conciousness didn't exist... How do you see yourself as existing before you were conceived ? In other words, please describe your existence as it was 1000 years ago, at which point I would contend 'you' did not exist. (I know, I know, time is manmade, but work with me).

 

[olde drunk]

Is that a trick question? I cannot conceive of a time when the material which I am made of didn't exist (given the incomplete theories of the origin of the universe) but I can conceive of a time when my conciousness didn't exist... How do you see yourself as existing before you were conceived ? In other words, please describe your existence as it was 1000 years ago, at which point I would contend 'you' did not exist. (I know, I know, time is manmade, but work with me).

no problem. i'll work with you, if you work with me!

my 'body' did not exist 100 years ago. I am NOT my body. for this visit into the physical i don a body in order to best experience a physical reality.

most of us ignore or are affraid of our unconscious self. if we take time and explore, we find that we ain't so bad and that we operate on many levels. i beleve we use our body to most finely focus our consciousness for self discovery. the brain narrows the focus of our mind. perhaps, the senses (touch, smell, etc)are expanded or enhanced via a physical body.

i do not want to diminish or disrespect our bodies, but we tend to see ourselves as only humans. i believe that we are much more. once we see or feel this limiless self, we are able to sense the energy that is the universe or god or whatever. when i feel this connectedness i know that there is more to our existence than just a brief human lifetime.

when i think of eternity beyond time and space i better understand that we (as humans) have only begun to understand the full depth of our reality. old cultures have a better handle on this than we do because we got entwined in the judeo-christian view of the world. to me, salvation, etc is a limiting concept; so is atheism.

i do not like to think in any terms that limit my future. to me, we are free to gallivant throught out the universe, exploring whatever strikes our fancy.

love&peace,
olde drunk

 

[kcballer21]

my 'body' did not exist 100 years ago. I am NOT my body. for this visit into the physical i don a body in order to best experience a physical reality.

I understand, I was assuming you were talking about your conciousness. I will re-ask the question while trying to clarify:

Please describe your existence during a time when your current physical body did not exist.

most of us ignore or are affraid of our unconscious self.

Have you accessed this unconcious? Do you have memories of an experience before you were human? (Haven't I asked you this one before in another thread?)
To pose the question differently:
Do you believe that after your current physical body expires that you (your conciousness) will retain all the memories you have acquired as a human? Or do you start over, blank slate?
Forgive all the questions.