About six years ago, I questioned my faith in God, realized that I had no faith in God, and became an Athiest. At first, I kept trying to cling to religion, but that stopped after about 1.5 years. At that time, after studying a great deal of history and math, I realized that there doesn't HAVE to be a reason for anything to exist, it simply <i>is</i>. I kept with that little theory for about 2 years, not that I don't believe it now, it's just not the biggest of my concerns. After that, I began to find more and more people with the same view as me. I began to study more and more, and with every bit of new knowledge, I got a little relieved. I finally came to the conclusion that we are all just random clumps of atoms, assembled by chance in a world of chaos. You, me, your friend, your cousin, your dog, the Bible, the Quran, etc. etc. are ALL simply bunches of matter made from supernova debris, and will continue to be. As far as we know right now, we are the only conscious beings in the universe (other than maybe some animals). The only thing that matters at anytime is your own pleasure, and/or knowing that others are safe/in good hands/nice to you/miserable/etc. So eat, drink, and be merry; we may be the only clumps of matter that will ever be able to do so.
You could have saved a pile of time by reading Ge. 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7, KJV). The trick is to figure out why you would care at all. There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God. (Ecclesiastes 2:24, KJV). I guess you're still clinging to religion.
follow up too tetra Tetra- ----------------------------------- About six years ago, I questioned my faith in God, realized that I had no faith in God, and became an Athiest. ------------------------------------ Just thought i would share that the same thing happened here.
Subjectively true My situation occurred nearly two years ago. Growing up religious and then, suddenly, accepting that religiosity is actually the chain holding the self down requires a great deal of effort. Congratulations on your efforts to utilize what little free will you may have left to yourself. Disillusionment is never easy; it's the picking up of the fragmented pieces of yourself and moving on which proves your newly formed commitment. Of course, this is easy for me to say. Giving advice and comments requires <i>almost</i> no thought.
follow up to tony... Tony1, Though you brought up some good points there, I think Tetra was looking at the matter from a science prespective, not religious.
shane, i converted you to athiesm (i sound so xtian) at the begining of this school year. you were a xtian til then, you went to church and youth group too
im only fux1n6 with ya. though u didnt think of a lot of the stuff i told u.... its still whatn you believe, and in a sense you made it up. you made it up for yourself. (no one probobly understood that)
This is the closest thing to a philosophy forum, which is why I posted the original topic under >Alternative>
Magic I was reading "Return To The Labyrinth of Solitude" by Octavio Paz. It's an interview on his book "The Labyrinth of Solitude", which is basically Mexican philosophical thought. There was an interesting passage, (pg. 334 from Grove Press), which I would like to quote," I believe that the authentic history of a society concerns not only explicit ideas but, above all, implicit beliefs. Ortega y Gasset distinguish (rightly enough, I think) two domains: that of ideas and that of beliefs. Beliefs live in the innermost soul and, for this reason, change much less than ideas. For example, we all know that the Middle Ages were Thomist, that the seventeenth century was Cartesian and that now many people are Marxists. Yet, in London, Moscow and Paris, people are still reading astrological treatises whose origins are Babylonian, or pursuing magical practices of neolithic times." Just wanted to share. Live long and prosper. Randolfo
Faith In my opinion you display the same faith as a religious person, you believe in things that you cant prove or disprove with any certainty. you seem very sure that we are random gatherings of atoms and certain that no intelligent creator designed us or our universe. you may be right, you may be wrong but you cant prove or disprove your belief, I'm more in the middle, I don't know, and I know that I don't know. wouldn't it be amazing tho, to really know for sure. What a beautiful thing it would be tho, to have been created out of love and with a purpose.
You have come to the conclusion that there doesent have to be a reason for anything to exist? How? Couldent this be said to bedirect proof of god? for it does exist? You said it yourself. There doesent have to be a reason for anything to exist - but it does. There doesent have to be "energy" or "matter" in the first place let alone a transcending operation. In the natural world there is cause and effect (not to say the concept itself validates or invalidates god) but sheds enough light to invalidate anything we consider conclusive on the basis that it doesent have to exist. Similarily, do you believe there is a reason for entropy or energy to exist in the first place? Or contigent matter? There doesent have to be a reason for it to exist. Thus it has to be "god". This frame of thinking leads to regress relating to the concept at hand. God doesent have to exist? What premise are you drawing your conclusions from? Certainly not the natural world. Than again we cant say god is natural without redefining the term to include the only thing that may be inffered from as real. Maybe the only thing that is "real" is god (If you wish not to personify it you can say its the non-intelligence and the intelligence, as abirtuary as it sounds) In which time is a consequence of "intelligence" or "will". If reality was any different it would be rendered meaningless (If we could do whatever we want, if we had certain things in our control, if we knew god existed, etc.) Thus your athiesm is pure unadultered will. The essense of god. Obvious obstructions that dont prove anything. It goes without saying that were all "clumps of atoms assembled by chance" Think about what your saying. You infer from the cosmos that we had to exist, furthermore you bring "world of chaos" to credit your position that the only thing that mattters is our pleasure and desire. Essentially your saying that only experience matters. Which is fine. But experience and matter is it neccessarily independant? How would you know that matter doesent have an exclusive relationship with experience on the basis of consciousness? I know I know. What about when there was no consciousness? That is just a speculation. In those moments we still could have been under a unified consciousness. Let me ask you this. If I took two pieces of wood and created fire. I just "created" fire. If I had sex with a woman and a burst of my semen fertilized her egg, I just "created" consciousness. If you are saying that consciousness is a pure biological process than we have no argument. But the "fire", the "consciousness", the "quaran" or whatever item you want to bring hyperbolizing your position is made from the same contigent matter in different interactions. Everything is always in motion. Thus its possible that everything is just an illusion for there is nothing really static about existance except for "physical reality" which is still a dynamic on a larger scale. Only if you believe that we are the only universe that can create fire? If you believe there is not a million other planets that have scorching or freezing tempatures. If you think about the causality our universe operates on. Consciousness is a consequence to reality and to certain conditions. For us to think we are the only condition that can create consciousness is a supposition that undermines the adjacent relationship between its fabric of existance and what physical reality actually "is".
it depends on what you mean by 'create' and that is the point. you really didn't create the mechanisms or the properties that would allow for fire. what we observe may be just a matter of cause and effect and not a conscious creation. even if it were conscious, if we define the concept of a 'god' as a creator, then the argument would be what created it or even the creator would be limited to it's own properties or the ones available to it. still, it would just be a matter of manipulation. we just don't know if anything can be created fundamentally.
