Question for agnostics and/or atheists

by sonnyboy 58 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  agnosticism is an honest position. some would say that it is basically just a PC version of weak atheism, but whatever, it's a neutral position

  I really am after you today for some reason Tetra.

  Actually I disagree that agnostic is a neutral position. You can say you believe this or that, but the truth is in how you live your life. I think you either live according to the assumption that there is a God whom you will someday have to explain yourself to, or you don't.

  I used to think I was agnostic, but in reality I was an athiest. And if you look at all the things I did, you would see I was a damn good one!
• 

  rebel8

  This thread is really deep!
• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  Just because you have a particular thought pattern, what makes that something about you?

  Because "a man is defined by his actions". His actions are defined by his thoughts and morality. His morality is defined by.....?
• 

  sonnyboy

  If its there and it wanted us to know, it would present itself.

  Exactly. What's the point in believing something based on faith? "Even though there is no evidence that I exist, you'll never see me, and I'll never talk to you, you MUST worship and obey me!"

  Obviously God's creators knew that people would smarten up and realize that there is no evidence of his existence, so they threw in faith as a catch-22.

  Steve and TS: Thanks for the info. I'll have to delve more deeply into the site a little later.

  ....if you exercised due diligence in seeking Him out.

  CYP, I did exercise due dilligence in seeking him out for nearly 20 years. This is what ultimately led me to where I am today.

  Now when I see televangelists spewing forth scripture as people are crying, putting their hands in the air, and praising Jesus, I get angry. They seem so deceptive an alien. They urge people to put all their burdens on an unseen alien instead of taking the initiative to help themselves. I get so frustrated by the fact that people can't see how they've been conditioned to think in such an illogical manner. Considering the possibility that God does exist, I get even more angry by the fact that people can't see how they've been duped by their "creator". I'd love to use Al Pacino's quote from Devil's Advocate (in my first post) as a signature.
• 

  Markfromcali

  Because "a man is defined by his actions". ; His actions are defined by his thoughts and morality. ; His morality is defined by.....?

  Well, who is doing the defining? Who is defining it that way? That's the real question isn't it?

  I agree your actions say a lot about you, and it says something about what you think and so on - but that is ultimately filtered down from some deeper principle as you have indicated so it is only a reflection of that.
• 

  Spook

  I am a soft atheist. I say there is probably not a creator, since all claims to such are unsound. The assumptions underneath that are basically that any discreet god which would exist (i.e. described by a religion or even the unspecified creator of ID) would be absurd based on the evidence in my existence. My assumption is that any *truth* will not be absurd. Now, I can't prove that is true. I am willing to be responsible for that assumption.

  I would be pleasantly surprised with an afterlife (or more life ;) ). I think your feeling of holding on will pass. Be excited by possibility. I love zen philosophy. I am by no means Buddhist. However, I've found that taking the attitude that I do not have life but life has me is very valuable. It offers me peace of mind that I am one with the universe as a natural expression of possibility. If you are willing to detatch from the need for being right you will find that you can achieve commitment to presence without attatchment to delusion.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  Actually I disagree that agnostic is a neutral position. You can say you believe this or that, but the truth is in how you live your life. I think you either live according to the assumption that there is a God whom you will someday have to explain yourself to, or you don't.

  hey CYP,

  well philosphically, weak atheism, lack of belief, is the neutral position. this can be backed up. the burden of proof rests on those making positive assertions, like that there is a god. agnosticism is so much like weak atheism, that it is basically neutral too, except that (as doogie points out) agnosticism basically is so neutral, that it's kind of impossible to hold (philosophically). so, we are talking about philosophy here. regarding how we live our lives: i agree that this is paramount to philosophy. but god belief is just a philosophy of worldview too.

  BTW, atheists are accountable for thie actions, and do have to explain themselves to others. they explain themselves to society, humanity and themselves. after all, that is all the evidence we have of the origins of morality.
• 

  sonnyboy

  If you can let identification itself go, that will be a real change.

  That's basically the theme of this thread. The question is, how do you let the identification go (whether it be with God or the JWs)? TS gave some good avice, but I've been looking into this for a number of years and a part of me still wants to believe. If I could have the part of my brain removed which holds such nonsensical thoughts, I would.

  Concerning labels, I remember visiting self-proclaimed atheists as a kid during field service. When the brother first told us they were atheists, everyone was agasp and the car went quiet. The 'adults' of the group then talked about them as if they were incarnated demons. The philosophy of our group was, "If you're not for Jehovah, then you're for Satan." It was years before I discovered that atheists didn't worship Satan and that the world doesn't exist in black and white.

  If we choose to label ourselves, we must be prepared the accept the responsibility that comes along with it. If we're worried about being judged, then misconceptions should be dealth with right off the bat.
• 

  seattleniceguy

  I keep thinking, "What if I'm wrong about this and he one day confronts me with it?"

  There are a few possibilities. First of all, if there is a God who is reasonable and caring, then he surely would understand why reasonable people do not believe in him. In fact, if indeed he can read my heart and mind, then he should know that my position is borne out of 100% honesty with myself and what I see around me. In that case, I would really to meet God, because I would have a lot of questions to ask.

  On the other hand, if God is like fundamentalist Christians paint him, that is, if he kills people that don't believe in him merely because they could not rationally believe in him, based on the best rational logic they can muster using the brain that he gave them, then he is a schizophrenic tyrant, and I would have serious doubts about any other claims he might make. (E.g., maybe he's not even the creator at all, but an imposter trying to hijack the earth for his own sadistic pleasure, like a kid messing with an anthill, etc, etc.)

  On the third hand, God might be like neither of these two extremes. For example, he may be a semi-disinterested logician who started the universe as a diversion. In that case, it would be cool to meet him, and I doubt he would have any hurt feelings at all over the fact that I didn't believe he existed, especially given the way he constructed the place.

  Of course, I don't actually believe that any of these scenarios is true. I expect nothing. If there is something, then cool, I can't wait to see it. In any case, live as best you can now.

  SNG
• 

  Markfromcali

  That's basically the theme of this thread. The question is, how do you let the identification go (whether it be with God or the JWs)? TS gave some good avice, but I've been looking into this for a number of years and a part of me still wants to believe. If I could have the part of my brain removed which holds such nonsensical thoughts, I would.

  Well it is not a function of a particular piece of information, it is about the tendency to identify with information - so no need to wear yourself out with overclocking that gray matter upstairs with massive data input.

  I don't know if I was clear in this, but believing is not necessarily a problem if you don't identify with it. Evidently you are already kind of there to some extent, so my advice is actually not to be too concerned about the presence of that belief. If you try to fight it through some violent action it would just shift identity to something else, but the dynamic of identification itself will still be there, it would just take a different form. Although even in that kind of process you can see that those particular patterns are not really you, because if it continues to shift then none of them can be you, just patterns you've taken on. Once you see through that your attention naturally shifts to the tendency of identification itself, and at that point you will have already become very different from most people in the general population - but then that can be seen through too.

  BTW the thought of wanting to be right is worth considering here, as that is a particularly prevalent pattern, perhaps more so amongst an exJW population than the mainstream considering our background. I would contrast this with being interested in what is true, which is different in that wanting to be right has the tendency to identify, which is a mental contraction, but the interest in what's true is just open. If you look closely you may notice the tendancy to want to contract upon some pattern of thinking that is more reasonable and plausible, what I would say is just acknowledge the clarity there but don't get hung up - continue to be open.