An Atheist Dilemma

[Loredoctor]

That's how I feel, as well. I also like Nietzsche because at times he's a metaphilosopher.

[Fist and Faith]

I don't know much about what Nietzsche said (I don't know much about what any of those famous guys said.), but I assume Bernard, from Northern Exposure, was influenced by him?

"Your existence has no meaning. None at all. And if you don’t come to grips with that, you’re gonna continue to lead a incomplete, unfulfilled, totally neurotic life. Now normally, I’m loathe to give advice, but, if I were you, I’d learn how to sit still; to face the abyss; to embrace it; to do nothing."

[Loredoctor]

That's very close to Nietzsche's philosophy.

[Avatar]

And beautifully put at that.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

[Fist and Faith]

Ah, The Esmer fights the good fight!

[The Laughing Man]

[danlo]

If I have any spiritual connection, it would be with the natural world. With the squirrels and raccoons in the forest, the deer trekking across my yard, the hummingbirds that feed from my flowers. If spirituality consists of calm and connection with my environment, then self is itself spiritual.

I agree, thrown in a little ahimsa, a self-evisioned and earned afterlife, no hell and a benevolent creative entity, and that's basically me in a nutshell.

[The Laughing Man]

[SalotHSaR]

Avatar, if you're reading the books that provide atheistic viewpoints then you'll find those answers.

If you're reading books with atheistic viewpoints then you'll find those answers.

It reminds me of that B&W movie PI. The mentor tells the student not to search for the number because he's blinded by it. He says if you get fixated on an idea such as a number then you'll see if everywhere. There will be 310 rows of tombs in a cemetary, 310 people dead in a bombing, etc.

The same is true for astromony. We seek out planets that are like the earth, and guess what, we'll find them. We seek dark matter, and guess what, we'll find it, even if we have to invent it. That is to say invent math that supports it. We believe it is there & so we will make sure it is there.

But real science should be open-minded in such a way that we allow ourselves the luxury to change our minds. Real research should be open-ended so that we aren't searching for proof of the existence or lack thereof regarding some thing but rather to be in constant wonder of the universe around us. Example: Hubble images made us wonder in new ways & they weren't specifically looking for everything they found. They were just enjoying their new telescope.

But honestly, I think that the person who makes up their mind to be a Christian, atheist, agnostic, or other type of believer (because they are all types of belief) and cannot ever be bothered to change their viewpoints are the narrow-minded. A person can be tolerant but still gullible and extremely stubborn. I speak of almost all of us. 99% of everyone has made up their mind by the time they are 20 and they never ever change it. Ever.

As a Catholic, I would never agree with a Christian that heaven is a given. A Catholic will always try to live good & grow spiritually otherwise there is no point. But if I were an atheist, I would never accept that God exists no matter what you say or how many miracles you could show me. I don't care if you had actual pictures of God himself, if I'm an atheist I'll never believe you. My unbelief is my belief. So really Avatar, I don't see the point.

If I'm wrong, let me know how I'm wrong. I'm willing to listen.

[Avatar]

The point of what? Deciding how to approach a world which has no point other than its existence?

The point of this thread? (There isn't one. )

Maybe I'm rushing through your post, and missing something essential. I doubt very much that any specific answer lies in any book. Generics, certainly. Ideas, suggestions. But the answer for anybody must always lie withing themselves.

External answers are far too general. As I said right in the beginning, there is no point to this thread. It was a random comment, an observation perhaps.

While I certainly see your point (and agree) about the nature of belief (or unbelief if you prefer), I'm still not sure what you're asking to be told you're wrong about. (Not that you necessarily are, but you know what I mean. )

--Avatar

[SalotHSaR]

Or maybe I'm just too serious.

[The Laughing Man]

[Kinslaughterer]

"We are all on the Hindenburg so there is no sense fighting over the window seat." Richard Jeni

[Avatar]

Kins.

If you're suggesting Esmer, that the important thing is how many perspectives we can contain, I couldn't agree with you more.

And another thing, I'm not convinced at all that thereis even a right or wrong view. Just views.

In the end, I agree with Kins: We're all gonna die.

Don't worry about it SalotHSaR, I occasionally suffer the same problem. But you've got me curious now. I'm really interested on what you have to say about this, both in response to my last post, and in clarification of your own. (Which are really the same thing. )

Don't hold back now...

--Avatar

[The Laughing Man]

[Avatar]

In a sense I agree with you, and yet in another, I don't.

I do think, and have always maintained, that perspective is the important thing, and that the more perspectives we can gather and comprehend, the better. (Hence my continual participation in discussions like these. )

However, I don't think that what we don't yet know invalidates what we do. If that was the case, we may as well all simply stop even trying, because we are never going to now it all, however hard we try. Every answer, every suspicion, every guess, every hypothesis, generates more ignorance than it does knowledge.

The trick is to continually combine those perspectives as we assimilate them, in the hope of developing a broader and broader picture all the time.

In that sense, no perspective is ever wrong, because it is true for somebody at some point. That is the important thing. To understand that in a sense, everything is as true and valid as any other thing. To the person who sees it that way at least.

Of course, not believing that there is a god, or that we were made in any specific way, I can't accept that we are not meant to comprehend things. (Nor that we are meant to. We're not meant for anything. We get to decide.

That covers the "offence" question as well, I think, but watch for the new thread, coming really soon. I intend to take a slightly different approach there. Hope it will be interesting.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

[Avatar]

But is his experience of it any less valid in terms of experience?

Is it any less true for being a different one to that of anybody else? Different, perhaps. But not "wrong".

--A

[ur-bane]

That covers the "offence" question as well, I think, but watch for the new thread, coming really soon. I intend to take a slightly different approach there. Hope it will be interesting.

Still waiting with antici.........SAY IT! pation.

The trick is to continually combine those perspectives as we assimilate them, in the hope of developing a broader and broader picture all the time.

Bingo. Well said, Avatar!