*"Atheism = Suspension of Disbelief?"*

Post Reply New Topic

If i accept "I have met many" ( ) as a statistically significant sample there are two things I wonder about:

First and most important possibility to consider is that just because atheists aren't imagining/declaring evidence of god in everyday events/objects etc does not mean that they are not applying as many or even more conceptual frameworks to an event/object, just that they may be less obvious, because more common frameworks, or less outspoken about them, or more automatic/less conscious.

If theists are indeed applying more conceptual frameworks to objects/events perhaps this is why they have ended up believing in god in the first place. Because their brain has a tendency to apply conceptual frameworks in abundance, something which can become stressful, exhausting, and depressing if is not channelled in a way which allows for multiple conceptual-frameworks, they have chosen to believe in something which provides the "space" for this activity.

But, although I started to believe in god again a while back because I had realised that for people, like me, with strong tendency to attribute cause, create meaning in chaos, search for patterns, and assign/ascribe relationship etc etc, belief in god may actually be a mental need, I am not sure that atheists aren't just as prone to this activity, but within a different framework.

Science for instance, which provides a massive space for ascribing cause , pattern recognition etc, at the same time as allowing people practicing it to continue to believe in the "essential"/real nature of the world that they experience, despite dependence on even more elaborate language/signs to do so .

There is a gross error in the assumption of chaos as a state of nature. Nature, as indicated by all scientific study, is constricted by absolute law with no need of a supernatural supervisor.

Why are you folks so eager to attack atheists, lately? I get picked on enough for doing my homework instead of going to parties. Now I have to contend with people who give me grief for learning about the world instead of superimposing beliefs upon it. As an atheist, I don't mind listening to you talk all day about the satisfaction that religion gives you. I don't mind hearing potheads talk about the joys of getting stoned, either, even though I've always found marijuana intolerable. A lot of them are nice people. One stopped and gave me a ride home just last night. He was a pleasant person to talk to. However, I would probably have busted his teeth against the steering wheel if he'd started trying to psychoanalyze me over my reasons for not smoking pot. I don't react well to the crap, so get used to it. It's not my cup of tea.

Altercations only really arise when religious people start saying, "Jesus is the only way you can really be happy. You may think you're happy, but you're not happy until you've had Jesus." Screw you. I take offense to that. You don't know my life's experiences, and you don't know my thoughts or feelings. And no, Jesus didn't turn into some magic zombie that can read people's thoughts. Duh.

That assumes our ability to comprehend Nature is perfect and informed by something outside human experience. Generally we're satisfied with our own understanding of Nature. How arrogant of humans to think there's nothing we could possibly fail to understand.

Is anything truly chaotic? Or is "perceved chaos" "always giving way to perceived order?" JUst the act of observing chaotic phenomena may actually organize it, change it via the conscious effort of observing. Chaos could continue unchanged until it is observed.

Order & chaos, I think the Almighty uses these interchangeably in our observable world.

The assumption that nature is understandable is only a useful approach to reality. To assume otherwise is merely surrendering to ignorance. It is not arrogance, merely pragmatism.

As a Christian I take offence to the absolutist view of Jesus As The Only Way. I'm supposed to believe that Jesus Is The Only Way... I guess ... but for some reason I don't. That particular teaching always stuck in my craw, as well. I attribute this to my having AS.

I agree, but not absolutely. I don't think it's assuming ignorance to acknowledge your limited nature as a human being. To assume the opposite, that Mind and Knowledge extend infinitely, could be called hubris.

My viewpoint is somewhere in-between ultimate mystery and ultimate knowledge.

To assume that the universe is understandable is not hubris but merely a plan of operation. No one is making any assumptions about infinity, merely working from day to day to puzzle out what is observed and how it fits in with the understood structure we know. New factors continuously arise and must be accommodated without talking about an infinity of unknowns. Gradually the structure of knowledge evolves as new knowledge is fitted in. Speculations about infinity may be emotionally amusing but have little to do with comprehending actuality.

I agree.

Everyone has conceptual frameworks, that can't be avoided, that is how our brains work. The important thing is to have an open mind so as to throw out conceptual frameworks that don't fit empirical evidence. A good non-religious example of what not to do is how conspiracy theorists rationalize away criticisms of the conspiracy theory in order to protect their conceptual framework. Religious apologists rationalize away criticisms of theism in the same way.

I concur that we all have conceptual frameworks into which to fit our observations. The prime difference between religious people and atheists is that religious people maintain a framework which permits no or very little flexibility so that when obvious facts which are supported by overwhelming data such as evolution conflict with their framework they are left with only the recourse to deny this data whereas atheists are not so constricted and can modify their framework as new data requires. Secular frameworks have made major changes throughout history whereas strict religious frameworks have, at least in some sectors, responded to questions by violence as their only response.

Well, I began as a hardline atheist. I tend to now think that there is some sort of universal conscience behind the workings of the universe, but I do not view it as a religious entity, more of a entity of conscience. And to develope a fuller conscience, labels such as religions and political ideologies tie down the mind and hince restrict the developement of conscience.
I don't expect others who are awakening to some truth to believe in my theory here though. I can only attribute my personal experiences, which is not something that can be proven to others. I'd feel more comfortable with a student who is atheist than I would someone who is attached to religion. Although I would prefer an agnostic-but-interested-in-seeking-knowledge student.
As for me, I believe something exists, but as I said, I don't view it as a religious entity. Religion is man-made, the conscience isn't. I won't even call it a god because god has became a loaded term. I'll call it a divine conscience, or a divine spirit even. I don't believe any religious books will bring you closer to it, if anything they'd drive people further from it. I tend to think we were given free will for a reason, to develope our minds, to break through all these deceptions around us and learning to free our minds.... But few people have the ability to do this, to break free from "conceptual frameworks" as Odin describes them, and most people are forever stuck in this matrix, because it's all they know and they fear what they do not know...... Put simply, most people would rather leave Pandora's Box shut, but a select few brave souls dare to open it. And when they open it, they come alive, begin trying to awaken others.... It's very difficult to explain though to someone who isn't strong enough to break through. And I think compassion also plays a big part there. I tend to think that our thoughts can carry a lot of power behind them.
As I said though, I do not necessarily expect someone who is waking up to believe in a divine conscience or a divine spirit. I don't expect them to. If they were my student, I'd feel better about them being atheist than I would with them being religious. I only know from my experiences. But often those who awaken far enough will recieve strange signs. The important thing (what most aren't strong enough to obtain) is the message of the conscience over the sub-conscience. As to what is ahead in the afterlife, I'm not sure yet. I can only say that I feel pretty strong that, for those of us who are awake, something better waits on the other side for us. As to exactly what that is, I can't even make an informed guess at this point. But now is the time to get it right, because once people are chipped with this RFID crap, it'll be too late. We're in the final days now. And I don't intend that statement to sound like a religious statement at all.

Last edited by snake321 on 03 Apr 2008, 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Unfortunately, after thinking about free will,I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't fit into the order of the universe and beyond that, since any sensible decision must be made on the basis of experience and expectations, it would not only be useless, it would be insane and terribly dangerous.

Your assuming free will on people who have not woken up to their conscience though (and sadly, most won't, theyr not strong enough to truely think for themselves). Developing the conscience also means intellectually maturing past one's ego, at least on the level of making decisions. Though it's not uncommon for me to get frustrated with people who can't think for themselves, but this isn't because I don't care... It's because I do care. Most people are too stuck in their "conceptual framwork" to evolve themselves past it.
Those who are awake will posses an intense and very rare hunger for knowledge and truth, which usually leaves us very withdrawn and isolated from this plastic society. It's like being in the twilight zone, in a way.
Whenever someone is locked into a system of thinking theyr not mentally free, their thoughts are dictated by a system. Be it religion, PCness, even things like feminism or masculism, ideology ties down the mind. There is only 1 external, ultimate reality, and we're all subject to it, and it doesn't take sides in our affairs.

But I also wanna add that aspies are no more or less prone to awaken than NTs. The aspie superiority complex I see on these autism forums, I used to be one of those people myself, so I know what makes some aspies think this way. It's because of the hurt and the isolation we feel being in an abelist society.
I've risen past it, I'm hoping others will too. I mean I know quite a few NTs who are smarter and more aware than many of the aspies I know.

It has nothing to do with being tied into any particular thought system, it has to do with survival. The most wide awake and aware person must make the best decision possible in any situation. That decision is totally dependent upon whatever the individual believes to be the factors involved and nobody but a psychotic person will make a mere random decision in a critical situation. You must consider all possibilities and that consideration is totally dependent upon past experience and comprehension of possible outcomes. There is no freedom involved whatsoever.