See now what wonderful discussion can happen when people aren't afraid someone will tell them to shut up just because they're discussing religion?
Xion:
For this reason, agnostics are usually broken down into agnostic-theists (people who acknowledge that their absolute faith in god is irrational), atheist-agnostics (people who acknowledge that their absolute faith against god is irrational, like me), and undecided agnostics.
Actually all agnostics are not theists. The ones that are not sure of this God thing are 'weak agnostics' and the ones that are very very close to certain that they can't exist are 'strong' ones. If there's a person that has an absolute faith in god, whether they give you that it is irrational or not, are some kind of theist, by definition.
Nd:
This seems, to be honest, as much a way of running from the issue as blind acceptance of paradise, and full of criss-crossing logic.
I am not sure I understand you.
If self-awareness is, as you say, inherently pathologic, then there is something in there to be aware of, which directly contradicts the idea that there is nothing in particular, and there's nothing stoic about hiding from truth.
Self-awareness I mean in the strict biological sense where a natural survival mechanism like an animal (we are animals) starts to run danger simulations so complex that there arrives a need for it to factor in its own presence with the memory of past desire and mistake. Therein arises the issue of consciousness, and that is where pathology starts as well. When I said 'self-awareness', I meant consciousness, the knowledge of oneself as separate from the other. I did not mean any quest to know everything about yourself, just you know, saying that there's an 'NDchristie' that is this bunch of organs and synapses who goes about doing this or that. There starts the pathologic behaviour, it is inherent in how the human machine works.
Perhaps this was a miswording? It makes sense to me if you say that the pursuit of self-awareness is pathologic (because self-awareness is unachievable), therefor nothing is to be believed in and there's comfort in knowing that there's nothing. Although I disagree with that viewpoint (as it takes the rather arrogant view that you could, in you twenties, know enough to know that there is nothing), it follows a process.
Do you understand me clearer now?
Personally I believe that it is the pursuit of this unattainable knowledge that gives life some meaning, and that the worst thing that a person can do is to either have no doubt that a belief is true, to never fear and therefor never be tested, or to be absolutely certain that a belief is false, to resign and never face the possibility.
It is for me more an issue of doing what makes you happy, and analyzing it too, just as long as you keep inside you the reminder - and the humor that comes with that - that any realization to which you may arrive is inherently not TRUE, because there is no such thing as TRUTH. This is an epistemological discussion of what can be considered dependable knowledge and how people who think they know TRUE things are torturing their psyche. It is a far-reaching discussion and I'm willing to have it with you - or anyone - just as long as we're on the same page.
The middle ground is what I've been calling faith: facing directly the culmination of all of your fears and offering yourself to them wholly. Accepting both that there could be nothing or everything, and that it is your "job" as a living being to seek the truth. And yeah, enjoying the squirrels.
This truth thing, you'll probably find quite soon, is probably something like a psychological illness.
Conceit:
I do relate somewhat, with the idea that atheism is empty. Mostly because when I have asked basic philosophical questions to people who declare they are "atheists" they just dont care. Because.....simply that is something that is not engaged in everyday life, and it doesnt deserve any thought, the purpose of being is irrelevant because hey...I dont have time for that, I got to get my paycheck.
I can see that. But also consider the other side of it. When you ask a 'loaded' philosophical question to a person that has come to be an atheist, like 'does god exist?' (which is a loaded question because first one should consider 'what is this god, what does it mean' before they consider whether it can exist or not) a 'seasoned' atheist might take that as a cue that you have not thought about this enough on your own time and a discussion of the same-ol' cannot serve a useful end. So they leave you alone to think about your own question a bit more before it is ready to be argued. I personally give hints on this one, but I like to argue (even though inside I know it doesn't lead to any dependable knowledge, but it's fun for me nonetheless!) but other people might not enjoy it as much. That doesn't mean they're going for a paycheck.
I believe it is CRUCIAL that what they believe it isnt something they THINK it's out there, but that they know whitout doubt from experience that it IS there. I feel like you havent really lived if you never have this.
I dunno, that sounds like psychosis to me. I aren't even in the position to tell you that I BELIEVE I even exist anymore, and I've never been healthier in my life. I can function as well as any random person, I just don't have the pathological breakdowns that follow when you henge your whole existence into faulty but inescapable assumptions.
B.O.B.
Not to mention the story of Jesus and having it retold over and over, and making us ashamed of what happened to him.
Heh yeah I kinda like that one on psychoanalytical terms. A huge guilt trip. To this I often reply - somewhat antagonistically, I'll give you that - Jesus didn't die for my sins, he died for his own. Ah, Crass, aren't I?
Xion again:
I've often heard the argument from atheists that religion is just a big cancer or something that wants to convert the whole world to its singular belief or something. What I don't get is why then, has every atheist I've encountered tried to convince me that God does not exist.
Well I am sure that a lot of atheists align with that field out of a desire to belong and a desire to feel right and better than other people as well. They try to make you an atheist for the same reason a theist tries to recruit atheists: if the world has more people that agree with me, then the world is a safer place. It's a simple survival process. That being said, often atheists might engage you in theological conversation to the goal of making you not so much like them, but just more skeptical, to raise awareness of that perhaps things that seem right aren't reall that right. I do not see the harm in this: in fact when I am approached by missionaries and whatnot in Greece (usually Mormons!) I answer their questions as honestly as I can and if they try to pitch books to me I tell them I am not interested, and if they seem able and up to it, I will engage them in mild theological debate. It doesn't have to be all RRRR BE LIKE ME RRRR NO YOU BE LIKE ME. In the end we are trying to communicate, and for all our differences we long to be reassured that we are indeed, made of the same stuff. If we are not so afraid that our own self-definition will unravel if the various layers of counter-definition are peeled away, then it is actually a joy, it's absolutely exhilarating to discuss with a person that is wildly different from you. But what is required to do this? It is required that you don't actually believe in anything with 100% certainty. And that's a quite difficult place to come to be especially early in life.
By the way, I'm not trying to say that religion and science can't live together harmoniously. I think that's nonsense. I'm just using science for lack of an opposite to religion
Actually it's impossible that they can for real. It can only happen if people just play dumb about where they clash. Like 'umm we need science for flying cars, but I am not ready to abandon my divine daddy yet so let's pretend there isn't any contradiction in there'. Here's the thing: if people KNOW they are doing this and they don't mind, it's alright. If they suspect but try not to show it to not appear 'hypocritical' then it's the sort of thing that slowly makes you unbalanced.
See, this is why I don't like these discussions. You guys are all using big words like pathologic and complicated terms like self-awareness and here I come with fucking "Um, like, yeah. And stuff."
If you make an effort to understand what pathologic and self-awareness means when I say them, I will be very happy to make an effort to understand what you mean with 'um, like, yeah. And stuff'. They are both equally complex points of view, and my desire is to get to know you, and everybody, not define you nor defeat you.
chris:
I love video games, so I'm clearly biased, but I like to see them as a sum of their parts. A good video game (to me) is some nice music, good story, excellent artwork, and a decent challenge all rolled into one nice, neat package. That's just my point of view though. Just out of curiosity, what do you think about books and movies? I'm curious as to where other people draw the line and why. I guess it sort of boils down to the "is it art?" argument, doesn't it? I know that Roger Ebert believes that video games can't be art simply because they're interactive, but I never really understood why that should matter.
I guess by 'art' people mean 'does it affect me emotionally and spiritually on a higher level than super mario world?' and that's alright yeah. Well... a few games do that, sure. Not most of them around. They are not 'art' in that sense because their focus is on gameplay, and gameplay is a simulacrum for HUNTING and KILLING PREY. Do you think it's 'artistic' when an animal in the wild kills to eat? We are animals, we are made to hunt and kill even if in the last 5,000 years we don't do as much as we once did. We still have those instincts, and they need to be addressed in some benign way, so we manufacture fields in which to excel and be the 'Alpha males' and these aren't only sports and videogames, they are also fields of academia and even musical subcultures etc. People are antagonistic because that is how you survive. In these terms (and they are terms you would do well to integrate into your system of understanding the world) a great book, let's say 'Crime and Punishment' is so INFINITELY, EXTREMELY more layered and deep and resonant and meaningful and spiritually elevating than 99.9999% of videogames. Videogames are a very early medium and the people that make them care more about simulated killing than exciting the spirit. So there's some truth in what Ebert says.