| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"mutatisutandis" |
| Date: |
30 Aug 2004 11:33:14 PM |
| Object: |
overcoming confusion and fear |
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
also, what are the distinctions b/w atheism and pantheism. im assuming
that pantheism "celebrates" an all natural universe for all its
creations (despite its randomness) and atheism clearly acknowledges
the universe but finds anything beyond the limits of one's reality
irrelevant (such as death).
lastly, i was raised a catholic but a few years ago after my
confirmation i began losing faith. ever since i was a young child ive
had severe anxiety over life in general (what am i? what is all
this?....) and it was common for me to have full blown panic attacks
whenever id think about this. losing faith was very overwhelming for
me, as i realized i lived my life in complete denial of my doubts and
fears. i still cant seem to settle on my feelings of uncertainty and
isolation, and whenever i talk w/ an atheist, they cant seem to
understand my fears. i know from their point of view, they are used to
the idea of no god and have learned to go beyond that. unfortunately i
believe i was caste a victim of religion, having been conditioned to
think that god is the only way to live and any other notion is
meaningless. i know in my heart this is not the case; atheism is an
optimistic and humanistic philosophy that is able to grasp more out of
life than any religion. but why cant i detatch myself from caring so
much about questions that probably dont have answers? i can only see
myself trapped in a meaningless void of doom, where life is but an
unfortunate accident. i guess id call myself an agnostic..however an
agnostic concludes on mans inability to know god's
existence/non-existence, something i havent concluded. i conclude on
nothing, since it may or may not be possible to know whether or not
god exists (is this agnosticism?). atheism would suggest that man does
have the ability to know this, since it claims or believes to know
that god doesnt exist. anyways, have any of you carried a similar
burden of uncertainty and fear? and if so, how did you cope or
overcome?
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 12:20:27 AM |
|
|
(mutatisutandis) said:
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
also, what are the distinctions b/w atheism and pantheism. im assuming
that pantheism "celebrates" an all natural universe for all its
creations (despite its randomness) and atheism clearly acknowledges
the universe but finds anything beyond the limits of one's reality
irrelevant (such as death).
lastly, i was raised a catholic but a few years ago after my
confirmation i began losing faith. ever since i was a young child ive
had severe anxiety over life in general (what am i? what is all
this?....) and it was common for me to have full blown panic attacks
whenever id think about this. losing faith was very overwhelming for
me, as i realized i lived my life in complete denial of my doubts and
fears. i still cant seem to settle on my feelings of uncertainty and
isolation, and whenever i talk w/ an atheist, they cant seem to
understand my fears. i know from their point of view, they are used to
the idea of no god and have learned to go beyond that. unfortunately i
believe i was caste a victim of religion, having been conditioned to
think that god is the only way to live and any other notion is
meaningless. i know in my heart this is not the case; atheism is an
optimistic and humanistic philosophy that is able to grasp more out of
life than any religion. but why cant i detatch myself from caring so
much about questions that probably dont have answers? i can only see
myself trapped in a meaningless void of doom, where life is but an
unfortunate accident. i guess id call myself an agnostic..however an
agnostic concludes on mans inability to know god's
existence/non-existence, something i havent concluded. i conclude on
nothing, since it may or may not be possible to know whether or not
god exists (is this agnosticism?). atheism would suggest that man does
have the ability to know this, since it claims or believes to know
that god doesnt exist. anyways, have any of you carried a similar
burden of uncertainty and fear? and if so, how did you cope or
overcome?
Freedom is scary. Maybe God wants you to be free, right now. ;-)
Shaking off the Western habits of thinking is my suggestion. I suggest
reading.
The Book On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, Watts
Man's Search for Meaning, Frankl.
Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig
Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book, Percy
The Vitality of Death: Essays in Existential Psychology and
Philosophy, Koestenbaum
Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, Reps
And a visit to your library's or an internet encyclopedia of
philosophy to let your mind go where it will.
And where they lead you. If you feel really weirded out, try The
Divided Self, Laing
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 12:03:05 AM |
|
|
(mutatisutandis) said:
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
also, what are the distinctions b/w atheism and pantheism. im assuming
that pantheism "celebrates" an all natural universe for all its
creations (despite its randomness) and atheism clearly acknowledges
the universe but finds anything beyond the limits of one's reality
irrelevant (such as death).
lastly, i was raised a catholic but a few years ago after my
confirmation i began losing faith. ever since i was a young child ive
had severe anxiety over life in general (what am i? what is all
this?....) and it was common for me to have full blown panic attacks
whenever id think about this. losing faith was very overwhelming for
me, as i realized i lived my life in complete denial of my doubts and
fears. i still cant seem to settle on my feelings of uncertainty and
isolation, and whenever i talk w/ an atheist, they cant seem to
understand my fears. i know from their point of view, they are used to
the idea of no god and have learned to go beyond that. unfortunately i
believe i was caste a victim of religion, having been conditioned to
think that god is the only way to live and any other notion is
meaningless. i know in my heart this is not the case; atheism is an
optimistic and humanistic philosophy that is able to grasp more out of
life than any religion. but why cant i detatch myself from caring so
much about questions that probably dont have answers? i can only see
myself trapped in a meaningless void of doom, where life is but an
unfortunate accident. i guess id call myself an agnostic..however an
agnostic concludes on mans inability to know god's
existence/non-existence, something i havent concluded. i conclude on
nothing, since it may or may not be possible to know whether or not
god exists (is this agnosticism?). atheism would suggest that man does
have the ability to know this, since it claims or believes to know
that god doesnt exist. anyways, have any of you carried a similar
burden of uncertainty and fear? and if so, how did you cope or
overcome?
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 10:54:08 AM |
|
|
(mutatisutandis) writes:
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
You're confusing two issues here. The first of which, the
theism versus atheism, is a discussion of belief and commitment. If you
believe that a god or gods exist, or if you have a commitment to the
notion that the universe is (or may be) under the influence of a being
not governed by regular and ordinary processes, then you're a theist.
If, on the other hand, you're convinced that nothing extraordinary
happens within your sphere of experience-- that is, the ordinary
regularities of gravity, electromagnetism, and biology are completely
reliable-- and that nothing outside of that sphere is or can meddle,
then you're an atheist.
Agnosticism is a belief or commitment to the notion that the
above issue cannot *and should not* be regarded as settled. The
principle idea of agnosticism is that "ultimate questions cannot be
resolved." It's possible to be both atheistic and agnostic (to not
believe that a god exists but to acknowledge that determining whether
that belief is "true" is not possible).
I am an atheist-- and I am *not* an agnostic. I believe the
universe exists, and that it does not exist to lie to us. Experience
has taught me, after the fact, that every event with a "supernatural"
explanation is actually better served by some prosaic explanation with
an ordinary and regular underlying cause.
It also stands to reason that every event has some underlying
regularity, or it does not. If it does, then the universe has no need
of a god or gods. If it does not, then we are unable to distinguish it
from incoherency and randomness, qualities that do not describe
traditional natures of a god or gods.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
Foras gradiamur.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Milan Klima" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 07:15:02 PM |
|
|
(mutatisutandis) wrote in message news:<b4c02ecc.0408302033.21dba340@posting.google.com>...
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
In the absolute absence of any evidence for a certain entity (eg
unicorns, ghosts, gods, leprechauns, etc) the default rational and
scientific position is that such entities are non-existent. Ie, with
respect to gods, the default position is atheism. Agnosticism is
simply a cop out. Why take the position that there might be a
supernatural domain which is unknowable and therefore stand on the
fence, when there has never been any shred of evidence for such
supernatural domain? Why posit or even consider the existence of such
supernatural realm at all? What is the rational defence for suggesting
the possibility of the existence of something which is unknowable and
then concluding that as such something is unknowable then we cannot
make up our minds? The existence of entities is taken seriously when
there is at least some hint of evidence for such existence.
The default position is that in the absence of evidence for a certain
domain or entity we assume there is no such domain or entity. However,
it must be noted that the atheist position, as a rational position is
naturally a fallibilist position, ie, should evidence for gods emerge
at some time then of course the atheist would be more than willing to
consider it and change his mind should the evidence be utterly
convincing. But so far no evidence has been presented and therefore
the atheist remains pretty comfortable in his position not believing
that there are gods.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 01:26:13 AM |
|
|
I guess a way I look at the big questions of life is that my body does not
fill up the universe.. If I'm finite in space, I seem to be finite in time
also. All that exists is apparently not contained in me, so I know that if I
were to end, things would most likely be alright anyhow. Any ratio of a
finite value to a value approaching infinity is for practicality's sake
zero. So I don't have to sweat the big things being on my shoulders. This
isn't to say I don't matter, however. After all, how many of me are there?
I'm rarer than diamonds or gold, and more fragile and more complex. So there
you have it. Appreciate yourself, appreciate others, Appreciate God if you
can, or appreciate your intellect, or any combination of all the above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 12:34:27 PM |
|
|
on 30 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, sandman dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
[...]
Appreciate God if you can, or appreciate
your intellect, or any combination of all the above.
When you see someone suffering from nicotine withdrawl, would you offer
comfort and diversion, or a cigarette?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that
intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree?
Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to be
as smart as God. We can't have that."
[Frank Zappa]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D4" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 01:00:03 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> said:
on 30 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, sandman dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
[...]
Appreciate God if you can, or appreciate
your intellect, or any combination of all the above.
When you see someone suffering from nicotine withdrawl, would you offer
comfort and diversion, or a cigarette?
I wonder what the analog of a nicotine patch would be.
Jim07D4
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 12:43:02 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95566B976CB6Dvicman@127.0.0.1:
on 30 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, sandman dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
[...]
Appreciate God if you can, or appreciate
your intellect, or any combination of all the above.
When you see someone suffering from nicotine withdrawl, would you
offer comfort and diversion, or a cigarette?
If I knew he was trying to quit smoking?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 12:48:49 PM |
|
|
on 31 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95566B976CB6Dvicman@127.0.0.1:
on 30 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, sandman dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
[...]
Appreciate God if you can, or appreciate
your intellect, or any combination of all the above.
When you see someone suffering from nicotine withdrawl, would you
offer comfort and diversion, or a cigarette?
If I knew he was trying to quit smoking?
Well, right, but as Mutatis was discussing the tribulations of losing
faith, I would compare that to intentional nicotine withdrawl.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that
intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree?
Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to be
as smart as God. We can't have that."
[Frank Zappa]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Godfrey" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 02:55:59 PM |
|
|
Dammit, that's MY analogy! Gimme it back!
Godfrey
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:48:49 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 31 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95566B976CB6Dvicman@127.0.0.1:
on 30 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, sandman dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
[...]
Appreciate God if you can, or appreciate
your intellect, or any combination of all the above.
When you see someone suffering from nicotine withdrawl, would you
offer comfort and diversion, or a cigarette?
If I knew he was trying to quit smoking?
Well, right, but as Mutatis was discussing the tribulations of losing
faith, I would compare that to intentional nicotine withdrawl.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 07:40:28 PM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Godfrey:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:48:49 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 31 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95566B976CB6Dvicman@127.0.0.1:
on 30 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, sandman dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
[...]
Appreciate God if you can, or appreciate
your intellect, or any combination of all the above.
When you see someone suffering from nicotine withdrawl, would you
offer comfort and diversion, or a cigarette?
If I knew he was trying to quit smoking?
Well, right, but as Mutatis was discussing the tribulations of losing
faith, I would compare that to intentional nicotine withdrawl.
Dammit, that's MY analogy! Gimme it back!
Godfrey
Oh heck, how did that happen? Maybe I should have chosen heroin
addiction instead. Same thing, though. We were both thinking about how
addictive religion is, and like smoking, the earlier you start the more
likely you are in for the long run.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that
intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree?
Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to
be as smart as God. We can't have that."
[Frank Zappa]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
02 Sep 2004 02:33:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 00:40:28 GMT, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote:
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Godfrey:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:48:49 -0500, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 31 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95566B976CB6Dvicman@127.0.0.1:
on 30 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, sandman dropped trou, farted, then
shouted:
[...]
Appreciate God if you can, or appreciate
your intellect, or any combination of all the above.
When you see someone suffering from nicotine withdrawl, would you
offer comfort and diversion, or a cigarette?
If I knew he was trying to quit smoking?
Well, right, but as Mutatis was discussing the tribulations of losing
faith, I would compare that to intentional nicotine withdrawl.
Dammit, that's MY analogy! Gimme it back!
Godfrey
Oh heck, how did that happen? Maybe I should have chosen heroin
addiction instead. Same thing, though. We were both thinking about how
addictive religion is, and like smoking, the earlier you start the more
likely you are in for the long run.
Yeah, I see now that I should have gone about it the other way around than I did:
I should have taken up smoking when I was five or six, and not touched religion until
I was twelve, under the corrupting influence of the Boy Scouts. I'd probably have
had bronchitis the first time at age eleven, instead of twenty, and maybe have
died of cancer before I reached thirty-five, but my earlier years would have been
healthier, psychologically and emotionally.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Godfrey" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 01:17:28 AM |
|
|
Mutati-
Thanks for a refreshingly meaningful question. My thoughts are with
you as you grapple with this crisis. I can't promise you that atheism
provides you with any easier answers than religion offered you. I can
only promise you that there is a distinct satisfaction in recognizing
amd living with truth.
The fact that the truth about "God" is obvious enough that you began
to see it even as a child should provide some comfort, both in your
natural ability to see through the fog of religious indoctrination and
in the knowledge that a truth so readily apparent even to a child
must, in fact, have some credence.
Think about it: nobody has to teach an atheist from birth that there
are no such things as gods; in today's world all a parent needs to is
provide the scientific explanations that will deter the impulse to
invent gods to explain the mysterious.
"Mommy, is there a man in the moon? I see a face."
"No, dear. Here, look through the telescope. They're just craters."
First of all, you have to recognize your feelings for what they are;
remnants of conditioning instilled in you from the first years of
life. I doubt that these remants will ever disappear entirely, but the
fact that you have recognized the absence of logic in your old
religion, even in the face of a lifetime of inculcation, speaks very
well for your ability to eventually overcome the fears and anxiety you
are feeling now.
More specific answers below.
On 30 Aug 2004 21:33:14 -0700,
(mutatisutandis) wrote:
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
In my opinion, it is indeed better to dismiss all gods. I think that
allowing other gods to exist in your worldview will only prolong your
anxiety. It's like having one cigarette a day instead of a pack;
you're still a smoker. Only when you quit entirely will you realize
that you can survive without any cigarettes at all.
also, what are the distinctions b/w atheism and pantheism. im assuming
that pantheism "celebrates" an all natural universe for all its
creations (despite its randomness) and atheism clearly acknowledges
the universe but finds anything beyond the limits of one's reality
irrelevant (such as death).
If you want the differences in spite of my reasoning above, I must
defer to somebody who knows or cares more about the subject of
pantheism than I do.
lastly, i was raised a catholic but a few years ago after my
confirmation i began losing faith. ever since i was a young child ive
had severe anxiety over life in general (what am i? what is all
this?....) and it was common for me to have full blown panic attacks
whenever id think about this. losing faith was very overwhelming for
me, as i realized i lived my life in complete denial of my doubts and
fears. i still cant seem to settle on my feelings of uncertainty and
isolation, and whenever i talk w/ an atheist, they cant seem to
understand my fears.
I understand your fears. I am 36 and have been an atheist since I was
about 15. After more than 20 years of being "on my own" I still
occasionally dread the thought of death. But therein lies the rub:
it was to allay this very fear that caused men to invent gods in the
first place. The fear of death is natural. It is your survival
instinct coming back to haunt you.
I have come to think of death as a sort of peace rather than a gaping
black abyss. Sort of an eternal rest from the rigors of life. Is
that such a bad thing? I think not, especially when you realize that
you won't know you're dead anyway.
Aside from a few scary moments many, many years from now, the only
thing you have to fear is fear itself.
< i know from their point of view, they are used to
the idea of no god and have learned to go beyond that. unfortunately i
believe i was caste a victim of religion, having been conditioned to
think that god is the only way to live and any other notion is
meaningless. i know in my heart this is not the case; atheism is an
optimistic and humanistic philosophy that is able to grasp more out of
life than any religion.
Christianity can be an optimistic and fulfilling philosophy too. Add
to that the comfort of "knowing" that something awaits you when you
die, and it's no wonder so many people are willing to overlook the
frailties of its logic. But the fact is, it's not real. It's an
illusion, and I believe that living in the real world is preferable to
living in any illusion.
When illusions are shattered, whether suddenly or over the course of
years as was yours, there is inevitably a void where that illusion
used to live. Like a former heroin addict, you will always live with
the fact that you can never again take another hit, even though it
seems that the bliss of being high was the only time you could
completely escape from yourself.
The secret of being an atheist? Don't try to escape from yourself
anymore. Embrace what you are: a thinking, logical creature with an
indeterminate amount of time left on this planet. The potential
brevity of your time will make it all the more valuable.
but why cant i detatch myself from caring so
much about questions that probably dont have answers? i can only see
myself trapped in a meaningless void of doom, where life is but an
unfortunate accident. i guess id call myself an agnostic..
however an
agnostic concludes on mans inability to know god's
existence/non-existence, something i havent concluded. i conclude on
nothing, since it may or may not be possible to know whether or not
god exists (is this agnosticism?).
Others here may differ, but I believe agnosticism is a bit of a cop
out. Pascal's Wager is no reason to submit to the remnants of your
primal fear. In other words, don't hedge your bets "just in case" a
god exists. The truth is much more fulfilling.
Having said that, agnosticism is a valid stepping stone on the way to
atheism. Some people never get beyond it, and I think that's too bad.
But it's much better in my eyes than living your entire life with a
vengeful god looking over your shoulder.
At any rate, welcome wholeheartedly to reality, my friend. It does
get better, trust me. :-)
Godfrey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 01:06:20 AM |
|
|
No difference:
Atheist = without God.
Agnostic = without knowledge.
Both are the same thing, since those who know not God know not anything.
"mutatisutandis" <mutatisutandis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b4c02ecc.0408302033.21dba340@posting.google.com...
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
also, what are the distinctions b/w atheism and pantheism. im assuming
that pantheism "celebrates" an all natural universe for all its
creations (despite its randomness) and atheism clearly acknowledges
the universe but finds anything beyond the limits of one's reality
irrelevant (such as death).
lastly, i was raised a catholic but a few years ago after my
confirmation i began losing faith. ever since i was a young child ive
had severe anxiety over life in general (what am i? what is all
this?....) and it was common for me to have full blown panic attacks
whenever id think about this. losing faith was very overwhelming for
me, as i realized i lived my life in complete denial of my doubts and
fears. i still cant seem to settle on my feelings of uncertainty and
isolation, and whenever i talk w/ an atheist, they cant seem to
understand my fears. i know from their point of view, they are used to
the idea of no god and have learned to go beyond that. unfortunately i
believe i was caste a victim of religion, having been conditioned to
think that god is the only way to live and any other notion is
meaningless. i know in my heart this is not the case; atheism is an
optimistic and humanistic philosophy that is able to grasp more out of
life than any religion. but why cant i detatch myself from caring so
much about questions that probably dont have answers? i can only see
myself trapped in a meaningless void of doom, where life is but an
unfortunate accident. i guess id call myself an agnostic..however an
agnostic concludes on mans inability to know god's
existence/non-existence, something i havent concluded. i conclude on
nothing, since it may or may not be possible to know whether or not
god exists (is this agnosticism?). atheism would suggest that man does
have the ability to know this, since it claims or believes to know
that god doesnt exist. anyways, have any of you carried a similar
burden of uncertainty and fear? and if so, how did you cope or
overcome?
.
|
|
|
| User: "sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 01:11:32 AM |
|
|
I was only playing in case any atheist fundamentalists get all up in a
jihad.
"sandman" <m.sandman@cox.net> wrote in message
news:wzUYc.24360$wu.23519@okepread04...
No difference:
Atheist = without God.
Agnostic = without knowledge.
Both are the same thing, since those who know not God know not anything.
"mutatisutandis" <mutatisutandis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b4c02ecc.0408302033.21dba340@posting.google.com...
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
also, what are the distinctions b/w atheism and pantheism. im assuming
that pantheism "celebrates" an all natural universe for all its
creations (despite its randomness) and atheism clearly acknowledges
the universe but finds anything beyond the limits of one's reality
irrelevant (such as death).
lastly, i was raised a catholic but a few years ago after my
confirmation i began losing faith. ever since i was a young child ive
had severe anxiety over life in general (what am i? what is all
this?....) and it was common for me to have full blown panic attacks
whenever id think about this. losing faith was very overwhelming for
me, as i realized i lived my life in complete denial of my doubts and
fears. i still cant seem to settle on my feelings of uncertainty and
isolation, and whenever i talk w/ an atheist, they cant seem to
understand my fears. i know from their point of view, they are used to
the idea of no god and have learned to go beyond that. unfortunately i
believe i was caste a victim of religion, having been conditioned to
think that god is the only way to live and any other notion is
meaningless. i know in my heart this is not the case; atheism is an
optimistic and humanistic philosophy that is able to grasp more out of
life than any religion. but why cant i detatch myself from caring so
much about questions that probably dont have answers? i can only see
myself trapped in a meaningless void of doom, where life is but an
unfortunate accident. i guess id call myself an agnostic..however an
agnostic concludes on mans inability to know god's
existence/non-existence, something i havent concluded. i conclude on
nothing, since it may or may not be possible to know whether or not
god exists (is this agnosticism?). atheism would suggest that man does
have the ability to know this, since it claims or believes to know
that god doesnt exist. anyways, have any of you carried a similar
burden of uncertainty and fear? and if so, how did you cope or
overcome?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 11:53:50 AM |
|
|
on 30 Aug 2004 in alt.atheism, sandman dropped trou, farted, then shouted:
I was only playing in case any atheist fundamentalists get all up in a
jihad.
How deliciously uninformed is this statement? Atheist fundamentalists?
Jihad? Next you'll be wondering when each of us was baptized atheist. Or
what we got for our Bah-mitzvah.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that
intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree?
Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. "You eat this apple, you're going to be
as smart as God. We can't have that."
[Frank Zappa]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 06:40:06 AM |
|
|
sandman wrote:
I was only playing in case any atheist fundamentalists get all up in a
jihad.
You can't have an atheist Jihad !!
Atheism is a total lack of belief in Gods, and 'Holiness'....so no 'Holy
Wars' possible.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 09:06:12 AM |
|
|
On 30 Aug 2004 21:33:14 -0700,
(mutatisutandis) wrote:
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
also, what are the distinctions b/w atheism and pantheism. im assuming
that pantheism "celebrates" an all natural universe for all its
creations (despite its randomness) and atheism clearly acknowledges
the universe but finds anything beyond the limits of one's reality
irrelevant (such as death).
lastly, i was raised a catholic but a few years ago after my
confirmation i began losing faith. ever since i was a young child ive
had severe anxiety over life in general (what am i? what is all
this?....) and it was common for me to have full blown panic attacks
whenever id think about this. losing faith was very overwhelming for
me, as i realized i lived my life in complete denial of my doubts and
fears. i still cant seem to settle on my feelings of uncertainty and
isolation, and whenever i talk w/ an atheist, they cant seem to
understand my fears. i know from their point of view, they are used to
the idea of no god and have learned to go beyond that. unfortunately i
believe i was caste a victim of religion, having been conditioned to
think that god is the only way to live and any other notion is
meaningless. i know in my heart this is not the case; atheism is an
optimistic and humanistic philosophy that is able to grasp more out of
life than any religion. but why cant i detatch myself from caring so
much about questions that probably dont have answers? i can only see
myself trapped in a meaningless void of doom, where life is but an
unfortunate accident. i guess id call myself an agnostic..however an
agnostic concludes on mans inability to know god's
existence/non-existence, something i havent concluded. i conclude on
nothing, since it may or may not be possible to know whether or not
god exists (is this agnosticism?). atheism would suggest that man does
have the ability to know this, since it claims or believes to know
that god doesnt exist. anyways, have any of you carried a similar
burden of uncertainty and fear? and if so, how did you cope or
overcome?
The idea that I'm the pawn of some super being to do with me as he
likes and torture me for an eternity if I don't love him to bits even
if I don't want to is far more frightening to me than a natural cycle
with parts to it that I have no idea about what really happens.
The thing that most ticked it for me, is realizing that fear of death
is built into humans. If we didn't have it, we wouldn't have survived
as a species. What ever you feel, it's a trick designed by your genes
to push you into specific actions. It's part of your body, not of
your mind or soul so to speak. The same for the feeling of lonliness.
There are some creatures on this world who are quite happy to always
be alone.
Understanding this gives one some power over the feelings.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 06:42:57 AM |
|
|
On 30 Aug 2004 21:33:14 -0700,
(mutatisutandis) wrote:
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
Atheism is a statement about belief, agnosticism is a statement about
knowledge. The two are orthogonal to one another.
As far as being rational or objective, ask yourself: does any rational
human claim to be "agnostic" in regard to the existence of leprechauns
or unicorns? Why should the "God" idea get special treatment?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kronk" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 02:10:58 PM |
|
|
On 30 Aug 2004 21:33:14 -0700,
(mutatisutandis) wrote:
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
First, a brief rundown of how various positions would be classified.
1. Believes that a god necessarily exists-- theist
2. Believes that a god exists, but grants that it might not.-- theist
3. Doesn't believe that a god exists, but grants that one might--
atheist
4. Believes that all gods are impossible-- atheist
Position 1 is not necessary to theism, but it strictly implies it.
Position 4 is not necessary to atheism, but it strictly implies it.
Agnosticism is the position that we can't know anything about gods.
It would be logically inconsistent with positions 1 and 4 above, but
not 2 and 3.
also, what are the distinctions b/w atheism and pantheism.
From what I've heard, Pantheism is, variously:
Worship of the universe as something living and holy.
The belief that the universe is one aspect of a god, or that all
reality is within God (by which meaning Christian Scientists would be
Pantheists, but the ones I know say they aren't).
The belief that the mind of a god arises in the workings of the
universe.
The belief that all reality is imbued with and animated by a single
spirit (unitary animism).
The belief that all gods are different aspects of a universal god.
Belief in all gods as separate beings.
And I've heard other definitions which didn't really do a good job of
defining anything. Pantheism looks to me more like a collection of
belief systems rather than a particular belief system. A better
source of information about pantheists would be from pantheists, but
I'd suggest asking several.
lastly, i was raised a catholic but a few years ago after my
confirmation i began losing faith. ever since i was a young child ive
had severe anxiety over life in general (what am i?
You are the mercurial surfer on the wave of time. You exist by always
changing into something else. You are death and genesis combined.
You exist only in the present, but in any static instant of time only
your physical form can be found, not you.
what is all this?....)
Good question. We're still working on it. Perhaps you'll be able to
contribute.
and it was common for me to have full blown panic attacks
whenever id think about this.
Panic is generally the felt need to avoid something, coupled with the
feeling you will not be able to avoid it. Can you tell what is was
that you felt the need to avoid?
losing faith was very overwhelming for
me, as i realized i lived my life in complete denial of my doubts and
fears. i still cant seem to settle on my feelings of uncertainty and
isolation, and whenever i talk w/ an atheist, they cant seem to
understand my fears.
The first question is whether you understand your fears.
i know from their point of view, they are used to
the idea of no god and have learned to go beyond that. unfortunately i
believe i was caste a victim of religion, having been conditioned to
think that god is the only way to live and any other notion is
meaningless.
An assigned purpose in life isn't necessarily better than the meaning
you could find for yourself. It's just easier.
i know in my heart this is not the case; atheism is an
optimistic and humanistic philosophy that is able to grasp more out of
life than any religion.
Atheism is godlessness. Any supplemental philosophies are optional.
but why cant i detatch myself from caring so
much about questions that probably dont have answers?
You can not totally control yourself. At best, one part of you can
control another part of you, and in this case, there appears to be a
part of you that does not feel like cooperating.
i can only see
myself trapped in a meaningless void of doom, where life is but an
unfortunate accident.
Did your life have more meaning when you thought you were created on
the whim of a god for no higher purpose than to worship and flatter
him endlessly? And is the prospect of an eternity of worship or
torture any less of a doom than simple non-existence? The problem of
meaning and purpose has always been there. You were just conditioned
not to think about it before. Asking fundamental questions is scary
because it's new. You don't know quite how to do it, and there's
still that nagging feeling that you shouldn't be doing it. For what
it's worth, it does get better. It just takes a little time and
practice.
...i conclude on
nothing, since it may or may not be possible to know whether or not
god exists (is this agnosticism?). atheism would suggest that man does
have the ability to know this, since it claims or believes to know
that god doesnt exist.
I believe no gods exist, but I also know my beliefs may be mistaken.
anyways, have any of you carried a similar
burden of uncertainty and fear? and if so, how did you cope or
overcome?
By doing what you're doing. I had questions and I went looking for
answers. George Smith has book which is a good introduction and
overview of atheism ("Atheism, the Case against God"). The title is a
bit over-reaching, but the book itself is sensible and well presented.
I fell out of faith in the days before usenet, so I can't say from
experience that this would be another useful resource, but I've heard
others say it helped get them through the withdrawal period.
Kronk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 12:16:40 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:33:14 -0700 in episode
<b4c02ecc.0408302033.21dba340@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
mutatisutandis@yahoo.com (mutatisutandis):
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over agnosticism
as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the right
adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone please
clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of a god, even
something like pantheism?
I think you're confused over what the terms mean. Atheism is being without
belief in gods. Agnosticism, per Huxley, is a rejection of "knowledge"
that is not derived from evidence and logic.
As Huxley said:
"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of
a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies
that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all
that is essential to agnosticism." -- Agnosticism and Christianity, 1889
There's no conflict between the two at all. In fact, atheists are
generally agnostic (and vice versa).
The *colloquial connotations of the words are not what atheists and
agnostics usually mean by them. But that can happen in language. The
colloquial meaning of "theory" hasn't much of anything to do with the
scientific meaning of the word...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan Klima" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 07:22:11 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message news:<CqSdndcjlf3qL6ncRVn-hg@megapath.net>...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:33:14 -0700 in episode
<b4c02ecc.0408302033.21dba340@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
mutatisutandis@yahoo.com (mutatisutandis):
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over agnosticism
as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the right
adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone please
clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of a god, even
something like pantheism?
I think you're confused over what the terms mean. Atheism is being without
belief in gods. Agnosticism, per Huxley, is a rejection of "knowledge"
that is not derived from evidence and logic.
As Huxley said:
"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of
a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies
that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all
that is essential to agnosticism." -- Agnosticism and Christianity, 1889
I agree with you. However, it is hard not see in Huxley's assertion a
subtle and diplomatic cop out mechanism. It is not surprising that
agnosticism as defined by Huxley emerged in Victorian times when
Christianity was already starting to be considered as intellectual
suicide by the intelligentsia but atheists were still hardly welcome
in polite company.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 07:39:59 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 17:22:11 -0700 in episode
<afe6b1c8.0408311622.63485e57@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
mtklima@yahoo.com (Milan Klima):
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:<CqSdndcjlf3qL6ncRVn-hg@megapath.net>...
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:33:14 -0700 in episode
<b4c02ecc.0408302033.21dba340@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
mutatisutandis@yahoo.com (mutatisutandis):
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
I think you're confused over what the terms mean. Atheism is being
without belief in gods. Agnosticism, per Huxley, is a rejection of
"knowledge" that is not derived from evidence and logic.
As Huxley said:
"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth
of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically
justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my
opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." -- Agnosticism and
Christianity, 1889
I agree with you. However, it is hard not see in Huxley's assertion a
subtle and diplomatic cop out mechanism. It is not surprising that
agnosticism as defined by Huxley emerged in Victorian times when
Christianity was already starting to be considered as intellectual suicide
by the intelligentsia but atheists were still hardly welcome in polite
company.
Could be. I have wondered at times why he bothered coining the term.
I still like what he said however. I agree with him it is *wrong to assert
knowledge you cannot show to be valid. "Gnosis" has been at the root of
many evils...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: overcoming confusion and fear |
31 Aug 2004 02:44:07 AM |
|
|
mutatisutandis wrote:
Okay, I'm confused over the argument which favors atheism over
agnosticism as being more logical and objective (maybe these arent the
right adjectives to use but i think u get my point). Could someone
please clarify to me why it is better to dismiss all possibilities of
a god, even something like pantheism?
All baloney. Agnosticism, the idea that certain claims are beyond
our ability to know for certain has little to do with either atheism
or theism. The Atheists will claim that lack of surety coupled with
lack of good evidence for god supports atheism. The believer will
counter that since we cannot disprove anything for sure, faith is
justified, and will believe anyway based on percieved evidence evenif such
evidence can't be called conclusive in a technical sense. A stance called
fideism.
Agnosticism is at bottom, pointless.
It is denied by strong atheism, and strong theism for that matter.
What matters is, evidence, lack of evidence that most certainly should be
there if claims about god are true, and disconfirming evidence, such
as contradictions generated by specific claims.
Pantheism comes in several varieties, and it is again, a matter of
supporting evidence or disconfirming evidence.
And even then, theism itself has differing varieties, immanent gods,
transcedent gods, monotheistic systems, heirarchical systems deities,
and so on. None of which rely on, need or have much to do with
agnosticism.
also, what are the distinctions b/w atheism and pantheism. im assuming
that pantheism "celebrates" an all natural universe for all its
creations (despite its randomness) and atheism clearly acknowledges
the universe but finds anything beyond the limits of one's reality
irrelevant (such as death).
Depends on what you mean by pantheism.
For some, pantheism is just emotive labels, the Universe as
god, or as mother nature, pick your symbolism.
Pantheism as in the parts of the Universe are more than its whole.
Or the idea that we can consider the Universe as some sort of living
organism, ala the extreme forms of Gaia theory.
Or ideas that the Universe is made of nonmaterial divine stuff,
Atman, and other religous stances, or the idea that blind material
may be the equivalent of a godlike being, "All things are full of gods"
- Epicurus.
Idealism, the Universe is an illusion, it does not exist apart from the
mind of god.
Pantheism is not a theory but a large collection of theories.
lastly, i was raised a catholic but a few years ago after my
confirmation i began losing faith. ever since i was a young child ive
had severe anxiety over life in general (what am i? what is all
this?....) and it was common for me to have full blown panic attacks
whenever id think about this. losing faith was very overwhelming for
me, as i realized i lived my life in complete denial of my doubts and
fears. i still cant seem to settle on my feelings of uncertainty and
isolation, and whenever i talk w/ an atheist, they cant seem to
understand my fears. i know from their point of view, they are used to
the idea of no god and have learned to go beyond that. unfortunately i
believe i was caste a victim of religion, having been conditioned to
think that god is the only way to live and any other notion is
meaningless. i know in my heart this is not the case; atheism is an
optimistic and humanistic philosophy that is able to grasp more out of
life than any religion. but why cant i detatch myself from caring so
much about questions that probably dont have answers? i can only see
myself trapped in a meaningless void of doom, where life is but an
unfortunate accident. i guess id call myself an agnostic..however an
agnostic concludes on mans inability to know god's
existence/non-existence, something i havent concluded. i conclude on
nothing, since it may or may not be possible to know whether or not
god exists (is this agnosticism?). atheism would suggest that man does
have the ability to know this, since it claims or believes to know
that god doesnt exist. anyways, have any of you carried a similar
burden of uncertainty and fear? and if so, how did you cope or
overcome?
It has elicited a phobic reaction with you.
Phobic reactions van be overcome. People that have had
incapacitating phonbias such as fear of heights, spiders,
driving, death and other phobias can learn to handle that
with phobia reduction techniques that are quite successful.
The thing to do there is to research phobias and phobia reduction
techniques via google, you may end up buying a book or two, and
learning to deal with this as a common phobia.
Its a matter of research and understanding and applied
application of proven techniques to overcome this.
--
Senator Waxman's searchable database of iraq war lies.
www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
A good portal to more lies and Bush stupidity is to be found at
www.failureisimpossible.com - Go to the index and go to
"L" for lies. All you need to know about Bush when you
step into the voting booth. Bush is a liar and surrounds
himself with fellow liars.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Fear and loathing
World of fear: Sun team finds Rael cult obsessed with plots against leader
semi-OT: fear of sabotage by mistranslation at Gitmo
The fear frequency
OT: In fear we should trust
fear and belief
"Atheists put on false courage in the midst of their darkness and misaprehensions, like children who, when they fear to go in the dark,will sing or whistle to keep their courage...."
Re : : Review: Hijacking Catastrophe: 9/11, Fear & the Selling of American Empire (2004)
| Organizers Fear Terrorist Attacks On Upcoming Al-Qaeda Convention
OT: A Toxic Mix: God, Country, and Perpetual Fear
OT: Fear Gan Dia
OT: Survivors gripped by fear of more waves as death toll hits 125,000
Tsunami Reactions of Fear, Faith Doubt, Clerics, Beyond Belief
Re: LIBERALS SHOULD BE HUNG BY THEIR TESTICLES ==> Hate-Mongering, Fear-Mongering, War-Mongering, Lies, And The GOP -- (Bush-Regime, Karl Rove's Treason, Colin Powell Quitting because he was forced to lie for Bush THE AMERICAN TREASO
Police fear for children of Christian kooks
|
|
|
