|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 25, 2018 6:38:13 GMT
Do you live according to a specific belief or understanding about nature of reality? Do you have any specific belief regarding what is real or not real? Do you think there is any after life after this current life? Please share your opinions. No matter what opinion you hold I wouldn't question the soundness of that or ask for proof of that. Opinions are not incorrect as far as I am concerned.
I am an apatheist. It refers to a person who has no interest in god. Such a person doesn't care about conducting inquiry into whether or not god exists or not or whether god is likely to exist or not. She doesn't believe or disbelieve in god. Arlon10 will possibly call such people lazy.
I would like to extend that definition to say that I am not only disinterested in god but also disinterested in soul/consciousness/Atman or whatever you term as underlying reality. My possible explanations for why I am so disinterested. 1) I believe I simply lack interests in spiritual and philosophical things. 2) I believe in a certain principle that "I should maximise my pleasure in life while doing things within the confines of law". I find it pleasurable to watch cricket or NBA. My pleasure is maxmised by that. Now while I am not 100% sure I do have a strong feeling that once you die then you are finished forever. Nothing lives on after your death. No consciousnesses or mind or anything. I have personally no problems with people who hold opinions that differ from my opinion but I can't force myself to believe in things just for the sake of believing. My interests are purely in things that give me pleasure. Food for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 25, 2018 6:49:02 GMT
Why did you state She doesn't...., instead of They don't? Because my earlier sentence was It refers to a person who has no interest in god.
That said my grammar is extremely poor and I usually write in a very bad English. The worst on the board for sure. Though Once I realize my mistakes I do edit my posts. So it may be usually better to read my posts after 5 minutes of my posting time as I am almost always making changes for the first 5 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 25, 2018 6:50:34 GMT
Why did you state She doesn't...., instead of They don't? Because my earlier sentence was It refers to a person who has no interest in god.
That said my grammar is extremely poor and I usually write in a very bad English. The worst on the board for sure. Though Once I realize my mistakes I do edit my posts. So it may be usually better to read my posts after 5 minutes of my posting time as I am almost always making changes for the first 5 minutes.
For example in my post above I have capitalised "once" for no reason. There is some problem with my writing and I forget things in the middle of my posts. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 25, 2018 7:14:49 GMT
Do you live according to a specific belief or understanding about nature of reality? Do you have any specific belief regarding what is real or not real? Do you think there is any after life after this current life? Please share your opinions. No matter what opinion you hold I wouldn't question the soundness of that or ask for proof of that. Opinions are not incorrect as far as I am concerned.
I am an apatheist. It refers to a person who has no interest in god. Such a person doesn't care about conducting inquiry into whether or not god exists or not or whether god is likely to exist or not. She doesn't believe or disbelieve in god. Arlon10 will possibly call such people lazy.
I would like to extend that definition to say that I am not only disinterested in god but also disinterested in soul/consciousness/Atman or whatever you term as underlying reality. My possible explanations for why I am so disinterested. 1) I believe I simply lack interests in spiritual and philosophical things. 2) I believe in a certain principle that "I should maximise my pleasure in life while doing things within the confines of law". I find it pleasurable to watch cricket or NBA. My pleasure is maxmised by that. Now while I am not 100% sure I do have a strong feeling that once you die then you are finished forever. Nothing lives on after your death. No consciousnesses or mind or anything. I have personally no problems with people who hold opinions that differ from my opinion but I can't force myself to believe in things just for the sake of believing. My interests are purely in things that give me pleasure. Food for example.
Thanks for explaining your use of grammar. I wasn't being a grammar Nazi, just interested in your use of 'She' and it there was some underlying intention behind that.
In regards to your post, I think it is very lazy to just want to buy into the pursuit of hedonist pleasure regarding one's life—if that is what you are implying, by the things you claim you like to do and think of as your life—which is only born out of the notion of arrogant self and creates all sorts of other societal issues.
Now you are welcome to your opinion but it is impossible for me to change myself just by being aware of the potential problems with my lifestyle. Just being aware that my lifestyle may not be conducive for me won't me change. For a change there should be an inclination. It's a small life (8o years?+-20 unless premature death) so I see it fitting to enjoy it as much as I can. It's my decision and so at the end if I regret I will be the one to blame than blame it on society or any one else for making me do things against my wishes. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 25, 2018 7:26:51 GMT
Now you are welcome to your opinion but it is impossible for me to change myself just by being aware of the potential problems with my lifestyle. Just being aware that my lifestyle may not be conducive for me won't me change. For a change there should be an inclination. It's a small life (8o years?+-20 unless premature death) so I see it fitting to enjoy it as much as I can. It's my decision and so at the end if I regret I will be the one to blame than blame it on society or any one else for making me do things against my wishes. Yes, it is your choice and decision and you have complete autonomy over that, just don't become your own worst enemy in the process either. You can also share your views on questions I asked if you wish to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 25, 2018 7:35:27 GMT
You can also share your views on questions I asked if you wish to do so. I don't really see the point at this stage. I will wait for other responses if any.
We have already had a big discussion on your other thread regarding what you see as fact over opinion and what I offered, only appears to have instigated this thread, as you appear to be seeking some sort of endorsement for your own notions. .
I don't believe there is a single apatheist here and I have never endorsed theism or atheism. I do not expect endorsement of my position because disinterestedness is not an active position but a passive state of being. One is disinterested not because he finds it reasonable but because he just lacks interest. Theism or monism or atheism are active positions that one comes to have after examining reasons. This board is either theist/athiest or right wing/left wing and I tick on neither of those. The other thread was very limited in perspective although a small part of what is present in this thread was eventually discussed there. This one is way broader. That said I can't force you to discuss things if you don't feel like or if you believe you have already discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 25, 2018 8:03:22 GMT
To answer the original question: I tend to be materialist.
This means: I believe there is nothing beyond the material or natural world, and I agree with the sentence "the supernatural is the natural not yet explained".
I also believe that no evidence has been found for a deity in the sense of most human religions. This makes me an atheist, since I also believe in Occam's razor.
However, I am not ruling out that something like a deity may exist. But I believe that if it did, it would be possible to collect evidence of it.
So I guess this makes me a weak atheist, and not a strong agnostic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 25, 2018 8:13:10 GMT
To answer the original question: I tend to be materialist. This means: I believe there is nothing beyond the material or natural world, and I agree with the sentence "the supernatural is the natural not yet explained". I also believe that no evidence has been found for a deity in the sense of most human religions. This makes me an atheist, since I also believe in Occam's razor. However, I am not ruling out that something like a deity may exist. But I believe that if it did, it would be possible to collect evidence of it. So I guess this makes me a weak atheist, and not a strong agnostic. To be honest I am one of those people who weren't aware of correct understanding of the word "materialist". I always knew the word did mean something different from what I believed but I was too lazy to look at the actual meaning. I used to think materialist means the one who is only interested in material pleasure. So thanks for correcting me.
When people ask me if you believe existence of god is possible then I have this to say depending on how the question is framed:
"Do you believe a god as in a generic god is possible"? Then I do say that it is possible although I have no interest in one even if one exists. "Do you believe any specific god that has been claimed by religious people to exist such as Vishnu or Ganesha exists?" Then I say I am totally sure that no god such as Ganesha exists because not only there is lack of evidence for such a god but the religious books teach so much of contradictory/unscientific stuff that it is reasonable to believe that their god(s) are made up.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 25, 2018 11:30:10 GMT
To answer the original question: I tend to be materialist. This means: I believe there is nothing beyond the material or natural world, and I agree with the sentence "the supernatural is the natural not yet explained". I also believe that no evidence has been found for a deity in the sense of most human religions. This makes me an atheist, since I also believe in Occam's razor. However, I am not ruling out that something like a deity may exist. But I believe that if it did, it would be possible to collect evidence of it. So I guess this makes me a weak atheist, and not a strong agnostic. To be honest I am one of those people who weren't aware of correct understanding of the word "materialist". I always knew the word did mean something different from what I believed but I was too lazy to look at the actual meaning. I used to think materialist means the one who is only interested in material pleasure. So thanks for correcting me. When people ask me if you believe existence of god is possible then I have this to say depending on how the question is framed: "Do you believe a god as in a generic god is possible"? Then I do say that it is possible although I have no interest in one even if one exists. "Do you believe any specific god that has been claimed by religious people to exist such as Vishnu or Ganesha exists?" Then I say I am totally sure that no god such as Ganesha exists because not only there is lack of evidence for such a god but the religious books teach so much of contradictory/unscientific stuff that it is reasonable to believe that their god(s) are made up.
Exactly. We don't know what caused the Universe/Big Bang. Meaning: We don't know it yet, and we may never know. But those who claim it was some sort of "supernatural agency", and call it God, usually fail to show that this "God" is anything like the character from one of the many "holy books"; which might as well be called "holey books", since they have so many plot holes. And I believe it's safe to assume that if a "supernatural" (in the sense of "beyond human comprehension") entity created the Universe, or caused the Big Bang, then it's unlikely that this being has any characteristics described in the "holy books". "Man made God in his own image". Another sentence I agree with. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Nov 25, 2018 12:41:00 GMT
I'm certain there are many different reasons that people are apatheists. I do not suppose laziness is the main one. They probably just have different priorities. They have enough problems with obvious solutions of more and less difficulty and prefer to spend time on those rather than pondering problems with no obvious solutions. As you mentioned, obtaining food can be time consuming. I would call that practical.
If other time is not readily available many people use their free time to ponder problems with no immediately obvious solutions. Some people have more free time than others. Most people have at least one day a week off.
I suspect that a main reason theism has declined in popularity is the widespread misunderstanding of science. Large numbers of people who are not very good at modern science believe it already has solved problems it has not, and believe it can solve other problems it never will. I would call those people misinformed. Many people with little access to higher education simply follow some crowd or other. A very large crowd is more fond of science than capable of it
Another significant reason theism has declined is that it is politically expedient to ignore the uncertainties imposed by such remote agencies as are found in religions. Especially forceful people want a more immediate address of problems. That of course is not what many on this board think. Instead they think the "religious" are the especially forceful ones. Many often claim to be motivated by "science" when it is obvious they are more concerned with the political ramifications.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Nov 25, 2018 14:17:01 GMT
To be honest I am one of those people who weren't aware of correct understanding of the word "materialist". I always knew the word did mean something different from what I believed but I was too lazy to look at the actual meaning. I used to think materialist means the one who is only interested in material pleasure. So thanks for correcting me. I think the most effective and solid definition of materialism came from materialist philosophers J.C. Smart and David Armstrong. You can fit it into a soundbite: "Materialism is the assumption that everything in the universe is composed out of the entities, forces, and properties which physics studies and reveals." |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Nov 25, 2018 16:01:23 GMT
i think you certainly know how i feel.
or at the very least: how you feel knowing how i feel on the subject of religion and all manner of spook therapy.
i'm curious:
do varying degrees of animosities towards religions frighten you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 26, 2018 2:34:21 GMT
To be honest I am one of those people who weren't aware of correct understanding of the word "materialist". I always knew the word did mean something different from what I believed but I was too lazy to look at the actual meaning. I used to think materialist means the one who is only interested in material pleasure. So thanks for correcting me. I think the most effective and solid definition of materialism came from materialist philosophers J.C. Smart and David Armstrong. You can fit it into a soundbite: "Materialism is the assumption that everything in the universe is composed out of the entities, forces, and properties which physics studies and reveals." I don't know what reputation these people hold but it seems their position is not illogical. We haven't got any evidence of things that are outside the bound of what materialist claim that universe s composed of. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 26, 2018 2:37:10 GMT
i'm curious: do varying degrees of animosities towards religions frighten you? Depends on what degrees of animosities are directed towards religions (and religious people) and for what reasons. Unlike you, I do not hold a lifelong grudge against any people - religious or non-religious. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Nov 26, 2018 4:23:07 GMT
i'm curious: do varying degrees of animosities towards religions frighten you? Depends on what degrees of animosities are directed towards religions (and religious people) and for what reasons. Unlike you, I do not hold a lifelong grudge against any people - religious or non-religious. For the most part, I agree with Phludowin and Faustus when it comes to materialism. But I also have seen and experienced great damage done by religion, and view religion as an overall negative, as does thefleetsin. Having a long history of negative events in my life due to believing in the Christian god, I've rejected that belief, and look at other religions in the same light. I understand why humans are prone to belief, but feel that we should have abandoned that mindset by now, and rejected the negative aspects of tribalism. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Nov 26, 2018 7:46:22 GMT
It is what it is.
We are lucky to experience it.
It is not permanent for individuals, though families endure through passed on DNA.
It would be a shame if humans stuffed it irreparably so that other humans cannot enjoy 'it'!
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 26, 2018 12:02:17 GMT
It is what it is. We are lucky to experience it. It is not permanent for individuals, though families endure through passed on DNA. It would be a shame if humans stuffed it irreparably so that other humans cannot enjoy 'it'! I have no problems with your views. Though it is interesting to note how different individuals have different take on life. Good that you consider yourself lucky to experience life. Micee thought it was a tragedy and even considered giving birth as despicable. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Nov 26, 2018 15:06:00 GMT
i'm curious: do varying degrees of animosities towards religions frighten you? Depends on what degrees of animosities are directed towards religions (and religious people) and for what reasons. Unlike you, I do not hold a lifelong grudge against any people - religious or non-religious. then you are indeed pandering to the pious. as they placate their platitudes on platforms of perforated pontifications. all the while sinking the planet into an even deeper shyt hole of homogenized castigation's. but you wouldn't know that. because everyone seems to have the right to suck off their particular god no matter who gets spewed in the face with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Nov 26, 2018 15:14:33 GMT
Depends on what degrees of animosities are directed towards religions (and religious people) and for what reasons. Unlike you, I do not hold a lifelong grudge against any people - religious or non-religious. then you are indeed pandering to the pious. as they placate their platitudes on platforms of perforated pontifications. all the while sinking the planet into an even deeper shyt hole of homogenized castigation's. but you wouldn't know that. because everyone seems to have the right to suck off their particular god no matter who gets spewed in the face with it. Not gonna be driven by American values of us vs them. Won't hold lifelong grudge against any community. Only with members I disagree. Have a nice day. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Nov 26, 2018 16:11:10 GMT
I'm in the materialist camp. The physical world is as real as we perceive it to be. As soon as there's evidence of a non-physical soul or anything else I'm willing to consider a dualist stance, but it doesn't look too likely that that will happen. I am not a strict reductionist however, and think that emergent behavior plays an important role in the world, and in particular our minds.
|
|
