If atheism is true would you want to know?

[Silmarien]

According to Buddhists there is. I mean, there are even stages of sleep where we have no subjective experience.

We wouldn't be able to say anything about those stages of sleep, though. I don't see how anyone can claim to simultaneously have mystical intuitions about the ultimate nature of reality and have no subjective experience.

Unless one loses themselves into Consciousness and becomes One with it such that it's no longer a "state". Kind of like self Consciousness merging into Universal Consciousness and becoming One with it. Ask the Mystics, they know.

They should still be aware of their awareness, though. I don't have a big problem with Advaita Vedanta and the idea that once everything else falls away, the only thing that remains is a universal, cosmic self that is identical to God. I don't agree with it, but I think it's coherent.

Sam Harris, given his materialistic leanings, seems to be going in the opposite direction. Everything falls away and we become aware of... what? The illusory nature of the experience of consciousness? How can you coherently have an intuition like that?

@Silmarien , in addition to the "oneness" idea in spirituality there is also the "illusion" idea. The idea that everything is an illusion is actually more appealing to me. It is interesting that Hinduism and Buddhism seem to contain both ideas. The idea that everything is an illusion shows up in psychosis too. Sometimes I think that it should be o.k. to harm people because they are only illusions. The illusion idea is kind of antisocial and immoral, so it is odd that these religions combine it with the oneness idea.

Maybe ultimately all these religious philosophies are full of holes.

Usually those religions don't make the claim that other people are illusory, though. Granted, I think this is the danger of the otherworldly, "nothing is real but universal consciousness" types of religions. Some people seem to be able to pull it off while still being compassionate towards other people, but it can also get a bit solipsistic.

 

[fwGod]

I'm defining "atheism" very broadly to mean that even if a god exists we humans know nothing about that god.

The we there, is atheists.
Other humans, Christians have encountered God, having intimate witness that God is real.

Atheists have not because they close themselves off, not wanting to truly find out. They conclude that what they know and don't want to know is all of the truth that there is.

So if "atheism" as defined above is true would you want to know?

The definition doesn't allow for anyone to want to know if there is an existing God.

 

[dlamberth]

They should still be aware of their awareness, though. I don't have a big problem with Advaita Vedanta and the idea that once everything else falls away, the only thing that remains is a universal, cosmic self that is identical to God. I don't agree with it, but I think it's coherent.

What happens for the Mystic during those times is that they are not aware of their awareness. After the mystical event it's not until they come back into their own awareness that they work through what happened. This subject of consciousness is key to the understanding the mind of the Mystics.

I'm not making claim that this is identical to God. I'm only making comment about the consciousness comment in a previous post.

 

[Silmarien]

What happens for the Mystic during those times is that they are not aware of their awareness. After the mystical event it's not until they come back into their own awareness that they work through what happened. This subject of consciousness is key to the understanding the mind of the Mystics.

I'm not making claim that this is identical to God. I'm only making comment about the consciousness comment in a previous post.

There's still subjective experience there, though. If there weren't, they wouldn't be able to work through what happened, because they'd have no knowledge of what happened.

 

[Robban]

What happens for the Mystic during those times is that they are not aware of their awareness. After the mystical event it's not until they come back into their own awareness that they work through what happened. This subject of consciousness is key to the understanding the mind of the Mystics.

I'm not making claim that this is identical to God. I'm only making comment about the consciousness comment in a previous post.

Through silence,
When Aarons sons were killed in the fire,

Aaron was silent,
Moses spoke,
Aaron remained silent.


Something from Rabbi Nachman of Breslev-----.

Through his silence Moses can hear the Word of G-d.

There are times that words are superfluous;
they create artificial barriers and prevent us from understanding G-d,s mind.

If one wishes to "arise" and understand the thoughts of G-d,
then silence is the vehicle to arrive at that lofty place.

you made a nice post btw.

 

[dlamberth]

There's still subjective experience there, though. If there weren't, they wouldn't be able to work through what happened, because they'd have no knowledge of what happened.

Mystical experiences stay with a person after the experience of said event. During the event though, at least in the peak experiences of Mystics there is no mind connection. This is why Mystics aren't understood because the rest of us think we need that mind connection to be aware.

 

[Silmarien]

Mystical experiences stay with a person after the experience of said event. During the event though, at least in the peak experiences of Mystics there is no mind connection. This is why Mystics aren't understood because the rest of us think we need that mind connection to be aware.

I don't know what you mean by mind connection.

 

[cloudyday2]

The we there, is atheists.
The definition doesn't allow for anyone to want to know if there is an existing God.

Hmmm. It seems to me that my definition of atheism being true allows for people to want to know but doesn't allow them to succeed. Either the gods need to be aloof or the gods need to not exist for my definition of atheism being true.

 

[dlamberth]

I don't know what you mean by mind connection.

I can understand that.

You brought up "subjective experience". Could you explain that please because I may have been overlapping my own understanding in my answer using the wrong words.

Basically, I hope these words work, I was pointing towards Consciousness or maybe call it pure Intelligence with no "I am" attachment or awareness during that experience.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

According to Buddhists there is. I mean, there are even stages of sleep where we have no subjective experience.

Jung argued that our Conscious mind is subsumed into our Collective Unconscious during sleep, so that though we have no consciousness of it, we did experience it in a sense. Leaving aside what you think of the Collective Unconscious, as merely a framework or a world soul; the base assumption of dream analysis and the existence of an unconscious component to the mind, is that subjective experience still occurs outside of what we remember or are consciously aware of.

Barfield observed that the four stages of the Upanishads to Consciousness (waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and pure consciousness) correspond fairly closely with Conscious, Unconscious, sleep/dream and Collective Unconscious of Jungian Psychology. Thing is, we must draw a line between equating subjective experience with conscious awareness, as we can experience without awareness. After all, if you are hungry, it may manifest as irritability - so you can experience hunger, without awareness of it necessarily. There is a cult of the mind, but it must not be forgotten that the mind is only an expression of a deeper whole - whether you term that Conscious and Unconscious mind, and body; or Soul, Spirit and body; or the Three bodies doctrine of Hinduism; or what have you.

I agree with @Silmarien though. The 'I' must exist to be able to articulate this, and something only exists if it can be differentiated from the rest. So while perhaps the mystics that see the 'I' dissolved into an eternal Oneness are experiencing something profound, it is still a conscious experience - perhaps though, a recollected simulacrum and dissection thereof. It can be perceived, and perhaps was, unconscious at that stage - but what is presented to us, must have been framed within Consciousness. Who knows? Maybe like an iceberg descending the four stages of consciousness to re-emerge altered; but in manner like Jason's ship, still the same ship. This is that old problem of the inability to describe and think about something while experiencing it - you must first stop doing so, before you can evaluate your own experience thereof. If we grant Unconscious mystic experience, our descriptors of it would of necessity be tainted by our Conscious attempts to explicate it. At heart, our conscious awareness either had to be intact in a sense, or we are dealing with post-fact rationalisation presented as experience.

Of course, Beatific visions are somewhat ineffable.

 

[zippy2006]

Jung argued that our Conscious mind is subsumed into our Collective Unconscious during sleep, so that though we have no consciousness of it, we did experience it in a sense. Leaving aside what you think of the Collective Unconscious, as merely a framework or a world soul; the base assumption of dream analysis and the existence of an unconscious component to the mind, is that subjective experience still occurs outside of what we remember or are consciously aware of.

Barfield observed that the four stages of the Upanishads to Consciousness (waking, dreaming, deep sleep, and pure consciousness) correspond fairly closely with Conscious, Unconscious, sleep/dream and Collective Unconscious of Jungian Psychology. Thing is, we must draw a line between equating subjective experience with conscious awareness, as we can experience without awareness. After all, if you are hungry, it may manifest as irritability - so you can experience hunger, without awareness of it necessarily. There is a cult of the mind, but it must not be forgotten that the mind is only an expression of a deeper whole - whether you term that Conscious and Unconscious mind, and body; or Soul, Spirit and body; or the Three bodies doctrine of Hinduism; or what have you.

Thanks. I am somewhat familiar with Jung, but I have not read any Barfield. I would certainly like to.

I agree with @Silmarien though. The 'I' must exist to be able to articulate this, and something only exists if it can be differentiated from the rest. So while perhaps the mystics that see the 'I' dissolved into an eternal Oneness are experiencing something profound, it is still a conscious experience - perhaps though, a recollected simulacrum and dissection thereof. It can be perceived, and perhaps was, unconscious at that stage - but what is presented to us, must have been framed within Consciousness. Who knows? Maybe like an iceberg descending the four stages of consciousness to re-emerge altered; but in manner like Jason's ship, still the same ship. This is that old problem of the inability to describe and think about something while experiencing it - you must first stop doing so, before you can evaluate your own experience thereof. If we grant Unconscious mystic experience, our descriptors of it would of necessity be tainted by our Conscious attempts to explicate it.

I think the Jungian model is more robust and explanatorily useful than the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, but I don't actually find the Buddhist doctrine to be contradictory.

At heart, our conscious awareness either had to be intact in a sense, or we are dealing with post-fact rationalisation presented as experience.

But what's to stop the Buddhist from undergoing a dissolution of the self, imperfectly recognizing it as a dissolution, and coming to believe that such a state is ontologically prior to the self-state? Inevitably there will be a degree of post-fact rationalization in making inferences about a purportedly subjectless state, but I don't see this as insuperable for their position. There were Quietists who came to a very similar conclusion, and I have heard stories of people who lose a sense of self to such a degree that they simply waste away, or even drown without struggling. You may have actually been the one who told me about such people.

 

[awitch]

Atheists have not because they close themselves off, not wanting to truly find out. They conclude that what they know and don't want to know is all of the truth that there is.

This is not true.
Otherwise Christians would not abandon their belief in god, and people who are open would not be finding gods other than your own.

This line of thought is just a safety mechanism to shift blame so you don't need consider it further, thus protecting your beliefs.

 

[fwGod]

Hmmm. It seems to me that my definition of atheism being true allows for people to want to know but doesn't allow them to succeed. Either the gods need to be aloof or the gods need to not exist for my definition of atheism being true.

The definition of atheism is that God doesn't exist. Agnostics have the position that God perhaps exists but if He does, His is aloof.

It's not that 'God needs to be that way for the definition to be true'. The definition is correct, but it's an atheist presumption, no it's not true.

Here's what I mean. The Atheists are not right, they presume it is true as if they had concrete evidence. They dismiss every valid evidence that God does exist.
They suppose the evidence is false because they claim that things attributed to God hasn't happened to them. They are speaking subjectively while discrediting the evidence that a person gives as being subjective, because it has happened to them.
The most accurate evidence is that it has happened to them. The public courts rely on this all the time.. witnesses who tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

The atheists demand evidence which would have to require experiencing a personal epiphany.. yet they dismiss what they hear from someone else. They say that evidence must be objective.
There is also real world scientific evidence but that too is dismissed by the atheist.. because their subjective negative is considered to be greater than a scientific fact. There is the reason why a personal subjective epiphany is necessary. They are stronger than outside evidence that can only confirm the already experienced epiphany.

Yet their arguments that God doesn't exist, are not objective, but subjective in basing God's non-existence on what they have not experienced. So they are trying to prove a negative that they alone have come up with.

Conclusion: They'd rather keep their own subjective negative (God doesn't exist) than remove the blind and seek to experience a subjective reality (God does exist).

 

[fwGod]

This is not true.
Otherwise Christians would not abandon their belief in god, and people who are open would not be finding gods other than your own.

You are making your argument using people who are not atheists. What I said about atheists stands as correct.. unless it's better proven to be wrong. No offense intended.

This line of thought is just a safety mechanism to shift blame so you don't need consider it further, thus protecting your beliefs.

The words "don't need to consider it any further" sounds like "goading".. an attempt to provoke me into replying to you.

As for "a safety mechanism for shifting blame". It sounds like an amateur use of psychology. A real psychologist worth their credentials wouldn't use such terms in an argumentative or provoking manner.
And, someone knowledgeable of scripture would recognize that I've made statements based on Biblical truth.

As for "protecting my beliefs".. The entirety of what you've said does not even qualify as a challenge of my beliefs.

Perhaps if you'd like to continue you might consider something that isn't ripe for getting reported?

 

[awitch]

You are making your argument using people who are not atheists. What I said about atheists stands as correct.. unless it's better proven to be wrong. No offense intended.

I referred to Christians who abandoned Christianity (or member of any other religion, really) and became atheist. Unless you're going to pull the No True Scotsman and say they were never really Christian to begin with, but that's another safety mechanism. You don't have to consider why someone's reasons for leaving might be valid if they were never Christian in the first place.

The words "don't need to consider it any further" sounds like "goading".. an attempt to provoke me into replying to you.

I used a general "you" about considering it. There are billions of people on the planet who are open to god and found something completely different than Christianity.

Clearly, the need to open is no guarantee of anything.

You (specifically) are under no obligation to reply.

As for "a safety mechanism for shifting blame". It sounds like an amateur use of psychology. A real psychologist worth their credentials wouldn't use such terms in an argumentative or provoking manner.
And, someone knowledgeable of scripture would recognize that I've made statements based on Biblical truth.

I'd ask to see your theology degree, but I do not recognize the truth of your Bible, so that's moot.

As for "protecting my beliefs".. The entirety of what you've said does not even qualify as a challenge of my beliefs.

The reason why atheists not believe in god(s) is because they do not find sufficiently convincing evidence. It would be just as equally ridiculous if I said you don't believe in unicorns because you're just not open enough.

Perhaps if you'd like to continue you might consider something that isn't ripe for getting reported?

Censoring alternate ideas is another mechanism often used to protect one's faith.
I am not intimidated. If you wish to report me, please prove my point and do so.

 

[cloudyday2]

The definition of atheism is that God doesn't exist. Agnostics have the position that God perhaps exists but if He does, His is aloof.

What I was trying to capture in my broader definition of atheism is the notion that seeking gods is foolishness - either because there are no gods or because those gods are inaccessible.

Here's what I mean. The Atheists are not right, they presume it is true as if they had concrete evidence. They dismiss every valid evidence that God does exist.
They suppose the evidence is false because they claim that things attributed to God hasn't happened to them. They are speaking subjectively while discrediting the evidence that a person gives as being subjective, because it has happened to them.

The problem is that evidence and true and false are fuzzy in the real world. So an atheist with a predisposition to reject God can fuzzy-it one way and a theist can fuzzy-it another way. Take the example of UFOs. There are some UFO cases where the skeptical explanations seem more absurd to me than the idea that something paranormal happened, but a true skeptic weighs the evidence in favor of rejecting anything paranormal or extraterrestrial. So as a person fascinated by UFOs I can sympathize with your criticism of apparent atheist stubbornness.

There is also real world scientific evidence but that too is dismissed by the atheist.

Are you talking about the intelligent design arguments or something else?

 

[Robban]

What I was trying to capture in my broader definition of atheism is the notion that seeking gods is foolishness - either because there are no gods or because those gods are inaccessible.


The problem is that evidence and true and false are fuzzy in the real world. So an atheist with a predisposition to reject God can fuzzy-it one way and a theist can fuzzy-it another way. Take the example of UFOs. There are some UFO cases where the skeptical explanations seem more absurd to me than the idea that something paranormal happened, but a true skeptic weighs the evidence in favor of rejecting anything paranormal or extraterrestrial. So as a person fascinated by UFOs I can sympathize with your criticism of apparent atheist stubbornness.


Are you talking about the intelligent design arguments or something else?

"Don,t be silly, there is no treasure."

There is,
it may well be where you are standing.

No need to dig up the kitchen floor though.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Thanks. I am somewhat familiar with Jung, but I have not read any Barfield. I would certainly like to.



I think the Jungian model is more robust and explanatorily useful than the Buddhist doctrine of no-self, but I don't actually find the Buddhist doctrine to be contradictory.



But what's to stop the Buddhist from undergoing a dissolution of the self, imperfectly recognizing it as a dissolution, and coming to believe that such a state is ontologically prior to the self-state? Inevitably there will be a degree of post-fact rationalization in making inferences about a purportedly subjectless state, but I don't see this as insuperable for their position. There were Quietists who came to a very similar conclusion, and I have heard stories of people who lose a sense of self to such a degree that they simply waste away, or even drown without struggling. You may have actually been the one who told me about such people.

So yes, there is a phenomenon under Buddhists where a monk meditates to death. He is so deeply in meditation that he forgoes food and water and literally starves to death. Due to the prolonged starvation, he gradually loses muscle bulk and soft tissues, and the dehydration at moment of death, results in a mummy in the meditative position with limited rigor occurring. Usually such were judged arhats or bodhisattva, so their mummies were often then enshrined - which of course lead to reports of monks trying to fake that such occurred for an elderly monk, or monks themselves trying to induce it artificially by starving themselves and drinking high salt solutions.

The very idea of a bodhisattva though, is that a part of subdividing mind remains, even within the One Buddha Nature - that ultimate dissolution is delayed from compassion. So the argument is that dissolution of self is only partial, since in absolute Idealism that certain schools of Buddhism adhere to, there simply would no longer be anything if the self had reified its own void. Does this not imply some maintenance of consciousness therefore?

It has been a few years since I last read on Buddhism, but if memory serves, it is not that the Self arises from the non-Self state, but that the self is an illusory state from khandas or heaps of desires and ideas that congregated together - like flotsam on a river. So really, it is less that non-Self is ontologically prior, but that self is sunyata or void, with no substantial reality. Any articulation of Buddhist doctrine, or explanation of non-duality, essentially arises within duality - this is why if you meet a Buddha on the road, you are to kill it. It really is wholely other from the Western tendency to try and explain reality, and lays far more stress on the experiential.

So no, I agree it isn't insuperable to their position; but I do think that for the self to continue to "exist" by Buddhist thought, no dissolution can have been complete either.

 

[fwGod]

I referred to Christians who abandoned Christianity (or member of any other religion, really) and became atheist.

That is still a separate issue. I wasn't talking about that at all. The OP is atheism, that implies atheists who don't embrace any religion at all.

You have introduced other different persons on your own. If you'd like to pursue that then I would suggest that you start a new thread.

Unless you're going to pull the No True Scotsman and say they were never really Christian to begin with, but that's another safety mechanism.

You are carrying with you a conversation that you had with someone else.

I'm not that person. I didn't address such a group because they don't fit into the definition of an atheist.

You don't have to consider why someone's reasons for leaving might be valid if they were never Christian in the first place.

Exactly. I don't have to. And I didn't.

I used a general "you" about considering it.

If you want to refer to other people then just say 'other people' instead of using a general 'you' that doesn't even apply to me.

There are billions of people on the planet who are open to god and found something completely different than Christianity.

You've got those people stuck in your brain don't you?.. however, they are not what this thread is about. They are not listed in the definition of atheists.

Clearly, the need to open is no guarantee of anything.

You have contradicted your point. You've just mentioned people who've been open to there being a divine being.. even if it is of the non-Christian variety. Therefore.. the need to be open is some measure of a guarantee.

You (specifically) are under no obligation to reply.

And so have you been.. but you did reply. I give you the courtesy to respond to you. My only objection to your reply is that you took a hard offensive because you apparently expected me to be using gymnastic strategies to deny whatever you said.

I, however am not that complicated.. your simplistic manner of communication has been easy to rebut.

I'd ask to see your theology degree, but I do not recognize the truth of your Bible, so that's moot.

Not every Christian who is a student of the Bible has an official degree. All that is required is to study. It's preachers that need to have a theology degree.

But your replying to what I said has given relevance to it. If you intend to make what a Christian says or writes of no relevance.. then I suggest that you ignore them next time.

The reason why atheists not believe in god(s) is because they do not find sufficiently convincing evidence.

That is what I said in my post.

It would be just as equally ridiculous if I said you don't believe in unicorns because you're just not open enough.

You are using your opinion of a thing being ridiculous and comparing it with what everyone would agree is non-existent. Unicorns are fantasy.

But perhaps you use such a silly non-comparison as your own safety mechanism because there are many who were atheists who opened up to the gospel and give witness that God exists.
But atheists don't like to talk about those who have left their ranks. Atheists don't want to admit that those former atheists prove that what atheists say is wrong.

Censoring alternate ideas is another mechanism often used to protect one's faith.

I've already responded concerning not needing to protect my faith against an atheist who can't provide a faith-threatening case.

I am not intimidated.

You mistake my words. I was merely doing you a courtesy to notify you. Some don't do that, they just press the button.

If you wish to report me, please prove my point and do so.

You need to get it into your head that you have no point to prove concerning me.

As for reporting you. There's no need to. This post hasn't much in it to report.

 

[fwGod]

What I was trying to capture in my broader definition of atheism is the notion that seeking gods is foolishness - either because there are no gods or because those gods are inaccessible.

If that is the way that you want to see it. However, millions or is it billions by now.. all prove you to be wrong.

The problem is that evidence and true and false are fuzzy in the real world.

Mentioning 'the real world' as your ally is more of an excuse than anything else.
An excuse not to accept that the Bible is crystal clear Truth.. which shows you the greater real world. But, you don't bother to test your theory against what a Christian says.
You must be very comfortable with your life as it is.

So an atheist with a predisposition to reject God can fuzzy-it one way and a theist can fuzzy-it another way.

That does clarify it.. yes.

Take the example of UFOs. There are some UFO cases where the skeptical explanations seem more absurd to me than the idea that something paranormal happened, but a true skeptic weighs the evidence in favor of rejecting anything paranormal or extraterrestrial.

I'm not just a skeptic. I'm a Christian who believes the Bible.. that gives no evidence that God created some other intelligent life somewhere then abandoned them to come to this neighborhood of the universe and create mankind.

So as a person fascinated by UFOs I can sympathize with your criticism of apparent atheist stubbornness.

On the contrary. Atheists are inclined to believe in extraterrestrial highly intelligent life. It fits their model of atheism concerning evolution.

Are you talking about the intelligent design arguments or something else?

There are many Christians that use intelligent design to debunk atheist arguments that God doesn't exist.