...what can you beautiful lights (I am not kissing up here) tell one about the above in relation to atheism vs. theism and vis-versa, and how one would go about reconfiguring self within and without. I once more feel marooned and I really need help.

any comments will be appreciated, thank you.

Daisy - 20 March 2008 10:44 AM

...what can you beautiful lights (I am not kissing up here) tell one about the above in relation to atheism vs. theism and vis-versa, and how one would go about reconfiguring self within and without. I once more feel marooned and I really need help..

TBH, if you think about it long enough you’ll realise that atheists and theists value themselves in exactly the same way except for the additional “value” of religion.

Kyu

Daisy - 20 March 2008 10:44 AM

...what can you beautiful lights (I am not kissing up here) tell one about the above in relation to atheism vs. theism and vis-versa, and how one would go about reconfiguring self within and without. I once more feel marooned and I really need help.

any comments will be appreciated, thank you.

Daisy,

The main difference is that if you are an atheist you don’t believe in an immaterial soul.

So what ever you experience is a physical process, which I have no problem with but what I can’t understand is what is doing the experiencing?

So I’m struggling with reconfiguring self within and without too.

Just thought I’d let you know you are not alone.

Stephen

Kyuuketsuki UK - 20 March 2008 11:01 AM

Daisy - 20 March 2008 10:44 AM

...what can you beautiful lights (I am not kissing up here) tell one about the above in relation to atheism vs. theism and vis-versa, and how one would go about reconfiguring self within and without. I once more feel marooned and I really need help..

TBH, if you think about it long enough you’ll realise that atheists and theists value themselves in exactly the same way except for the additional “value” of religion.

Kyu

can you be a bit more specific? you mentioned the R word, it’s very plaguing one. It is much more permeating than one can conceive. I’ve been finding out about it for about last 2 years. thank you.

StephenLawrence - 20 March 2008 11:49 AM

Daisy,

The main difference is that if you are an atheist you don’t believe in an immaterial soul.

Thank you Stephen, I think believing in an immaterial soul makes one skeptic only, not necessarly an atheist.
I personally do believe that there is something else to us beside the flesh. My doubts about god started when I was in my late teens but I repressed them. I think part of me always was atheist but the soul factor remain unmoved. I don’t think believing in a possible existence of soul should make one a theist and vis-versa. I personally don’t think god and soul have to be connected in any way.

So what ever you experience is a physical process, which I have no problem with but what I can’t understand is what is doing the experiencing?

we do not have a 360 degree angle on everything. what is not explained now, will eventually be later. But one thing is just because we cannot explain it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.  this is my humble 2 cents. I want to learn to rely on what I can physically verify and at least demonstrate and prove one way or another. 

So I’m struggling with reconfiguring self within and without too.

Just thought I’d let you know you are not alone.

Stephen

thank you for letting me know. I personally feel like I need to be reformated, reorganized, even my dictionary needs to be redone, take out the toxic related terms, replace them by the relevant ones, etc. I guess I am starting to be impatient since it’s been about 2 years that I first thought I was through with god and here I m still struggling to get over the hoax.

what drives me nuts is those ungrained subconscious exclamations, sighs, mental religion related reactions, etc. I want to wipe them out of my head, each time one pups up I wish I could isolate it to a part of my flesh and permanently cut it out if I could since the mental deprogramming is just not happening. It all feels like a disease that’s living in one and that’s refusing to leave.

Daisy - 20 March 2008 11:56 AM

Kyuuketsuki UK - 20 March 2008 11:01 AM

Daisy - 20 March 2008 10:44 AM

...what can you beautiful lights (I am not kissing up here) tell one about the above in relation to atheism vs. theism and vis-versa, and how one would go about reconfiguring self within and without. I once more feel marooned and I really need help..

TBH, if you think about it long enough you’ll realise that atheists and theists value themselves in exactly the same way except for the additional “value” of religion.

Kyu

can you be a bit more specific? you mentioned the R word, it’s very plaguing one. It is much more permeating than one can conceive. I’ve been finding out about it for about last 2 years. thank you.

Sure.

We all value ourselves and others against the society in which we live ... we value ourselves through our interests (for instance our love of art, music, film or sport for example), our material wealth (we can value ourselves because we are wealthy or inversely because we are not), our education (it may be important to us to be someone who is widely experienced or perhaps a specialist or perhaps, I suppose, in a negative sense) , or jobs (perceived status, usefulness, pay etc.) and so on! I think the thing I value myself most on is family and friends ... after a day of work, tired and wondering why the hell I do it anyway, to come home and be welcomed warmly by my wife and enthusiastically be my kids is just the most marvelous feeling and tells me exactly why I do it.

Ideologies such as religion also give many people a sense of self-worth even atheists inasmuch as their lack of it can be a source of tremendous self-worth ... I know I am immensely proud of the fact that I broke free of my religious upbringing and that I validate my morality, my sense of right and wrong against my own conscience and not against the book I was brought up to believe was divinely inspired by a god who was claimed to be the source of all morality.

So, you (a theist) have religion, I (an atheist) don’t. I value myself as above (obviously it’s more complex than that but you get the idea) and my best guess is you do too (at least in part) but it is clear from some of your other posts (for instance your claim to have been cured by Jesus) that you also define and value yourself based on your religion whereas I don’t (though arguably I do to some extent against it) so I think it correct to say that we value ourselves against much the same kind of thing except that the atheist doesn’t need the added bonus of religion (somethign that is debatable anyway).

Kyu

Kyuuketsuki UK - 20 March 2008 01:14 PM

We all value ourselves and others against the society in which we live ... we value ourselves through our interests (for instance our love of art, music, film or sport for example), our material wealth (we can value ourselves because we are wealthy or inversely because we are not), our education (it may be important to us to be someone who is widely experienced or perhaps a specialist or perhaps, I suppose, in a negative sense) , or jobs (perceived status, usefulness, pay etc.) and so on! I think the thing I value myself most on is family and friends ... after a day of work, tired and wondering why the hell I do it anyway, to come home and be welcomed warmly by my wife and enthusiastically be my kids is just the most marvelous feeling and tells me exactly why I do it.

there was a time where I valued myself mostly against what god thought about me and of course, I realize how idiotically passive that was. In a way I still subconsciously do to a small extent due to the conditioning I am trying to desmantle.

Ideologies such as religion also give many people a sense of self-worth even atheists inasmuch as their lack of it can be a source of tremendous self-worth ... I know I am immensely proud of the fact that I broke free of my religious upbringing and that I validate my morality, my sense of right and wrong against my own conscience and not against the book I was brought up to believe was divinely inspired by a god who was claimed to be the source of all morality.

I was brought up a muslim and as such I am also proud that one day (few years back) I took my korans and threw them in a dumpster realizing there was nothing to them but animal kaka. I did overcome in that area but not completely.

So, you (a theist) have religion, I (an atheist) don’t. I value myself as above (obviously it’s more complex than that but you get the idea) and my best guess is you do too (at least in part) but it is clear from some of your other posts (for instance your claim to have been cured by Jesus)

in regard to Jesus healing, I’d say I was too dismanteled to think at the time I had anything to do with self healing. But at other times, all it took me is mere mental focus for weird stuff to take place. maybe I should think over what might have caused that to occur since I didn’t explore any other subconscious possible routes.

that you also define and value yourself based on your religion whereas I don’t (though arguably I do to some extent against it) so I think it correct to say that we value ourselves against much the same kind of thing except that the atheist doesn’t need the added bonus of religion (somethign that is debatable anyway).

Kyu

I’ve battled with the existence of god for at least 2 years now, zigzaging back and forth, in and out of belief and unbelief. what do you think causes me to exclam “Oh lord!” or “thank you jesus” etc. on daily basis knowning I’ve many times been convinced that god doesn’t exist or is irrelvant at best in my life? I drive myself nuts each time I mechanically blurt out such sentences, I’ve read a part of “the selfish gene” (I had to return it due to library deadline, but I plan to get it back and finish it), I read other really good books that really convinced me, I absolutely categorically no longer believe in creation, yet, theistic dumb subconsicous reactions keep on coming out of me. I stopped believing in hell about 3 years ago and now do believe that life after death concept is product of wishful thinking nothing more. Yet, this seems not enough to clear me.

StephenLawrence - 20 March 2008 11:49 AM

The main difference is that if you are an atheist you don’t believe in an immaterial soul.

Ermmmm, not necessarily. The two are only tightly-coupled in the Judeo-Christian world. Other
traditions, having a more subtle and nuanced view of reality, are able to separate the idea of
an immaterial soul from the idea of an immortal soul, and both from the idea of God. Buddhism,
for instance, has an immaterial soul, but there’s nary a whisper of any gods anywhere in Buddhism.
It’s a moral philosophy, not a religion. And also keep in mind, in the Buddhist worldview, this
immaterial soul is not immortal; the goal of “nirvana” is to extinguish the soul. To the question,
“where is this immaterial soul after nirvana?” the orthodox Buddhist answer would be, “Where
is the flame on a match after you blow out the match?” It isn’t anywhere. It quite simply isn‘t.

So you can have an internally consistent philosophy that contains the concept of an immaterial
soul that involves neither the immortality of that soul nor the existence of gods. It’s only our
Western Judeo-Christian intellectual molding—and the intellectual limitations that resulted from
that molding—that caused those ideas to be welded together.

steveg144 - 28 March 2008 02:43 AM

StephenLawrence - 20 March 2008 11:49 AM

The main difference is that if you are an atheist you don’t believe in an immaterial soul.

Ermmmm, not necessarily. The two are only tightly-coupled in the Judeo-Christian world. Other
traditions, having a more subtle and nuanced view of reality, are able to separate the idea of
an immaterial soul from the idea of an immortal soul, and both from the idea of God. Buddhism,
for instance, has an immaterial soul, but there’s nary a whisper of any gods anywhere in Buddhism.
It’s a moral philosophy, not a religion. And also keep in mind, in the Buddhist worldview, this
immaterial soul is not immortal; the goal of “nirvana” is to extinguish the soul. To the question,
“where is this immaterial soul after nirvana?” the orthodox Buddhist answer would be, “Where
is the flame on a match after you blow out the match?” It isn’t anywhere. It quite simply isn‘t.

I thought Buddhism rejected the self. The soul was replaced by skandas - similar to Hume’s bundles.
Otherwise I agree with your analysis. Belief in a soul does not entail belief in a god. Certainly other Sansaric traditions can work without a god too and they do have a “soul”.
However the question is over a self which, again, does not entail a soul. If there is a self, it is dependent on a certain type of brain, body and possibly cultural exposure. However I am with Hume and cognitive science on this one.