I'm not exactly Atheist, but I'm not exactly agnostic either...

[Soul_Searcher]

Hi Reina,

"So I believe in a force if you will, I think it set evolution into motion, but its nothing to worship, nor a human like form."

Okay.

"I believe Jesus walked the earth, I just don't believe I should follow him."

In what way? Are you saying you don't want to be 'Christian,' or are you saying Jesus said nothing of worth that you can apply to your life?

"I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, but I do believe in a state of exsistence after death, or reincarnation."

Okay.

"I believe I should live my life how I want to, and that I am in control of it."

Yes.

"So what exactly can my beliefs be categorized into?"

Human. Why would you want to label yourself?

 

[franklin]

So I believe in a force if you will, I think it set evolution into motion, but its nothing to worship, nor a human like form. Its an it.. I believe Jesus walked the earth, I just don't believe I should follow him. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, but I do believe in a state of exsistence after death, or reincarnation. I believe I should live my life how I want to, and that I am in control of it.

So what exactly can my beliefs be categorized into?

You sound like someone who is a cross between a deist and a theist. In short you believe there was a God at one time but is no longer there any longer.

 

[reina23]

What I mean is how can you base a belief in a God "force", when you have nothing to back in up, and even you say he is no longer active in the World.

I feel some type of force set evolution into motion. Because there was a point where the earth was empty, and then maybe the motion of some rocks or somethingand some water set off a reaction creating some one celled organism.
And I can believe it because thats what I think.

IMO Sounds like evolution didn't quite solve the god problem for you so you have adopted a God of the Gaps?

It is not a God. A God is something you worship; think has control on your life. I don't worship anything, and I control my life.

Is your fear of death the reason your "force" has allowed you to live on in some form after death?

I am not afraid of death. I am just afraid of dying before I'm ready to.

 

[reina23]

Jedi.

Unless you start using your powers for evil. Then Sith.

LOL!

 

[LaserCool]

So what exactly can my beliefs be categorized into?

Unwilling-to-get-off-the-fence-and-decide-for-yourself-ism.

 

[reina23]

Unwilling-to-get-off-the-fence-and-decide-for-yourself-ism.

Well the reason I am asking is I don't know of anything it fits into... Not because I can't decide.

 

[reina23]

P.S. I love you icon thing. Lol, I have seen some people around this forum that blame Satan for things.

 

[Received]

Atheism is compatible with life after death. Atheism does not require materialism.

How?

I don't disagree with this -- from what I understand, spiritualism for atheistic philosophies can expediently take the name vitalism. Moreover, atheism in the sense of not believing in a higher deity leaves one open to the possibility of theism being the case. This in mind, atheism is not compatible with an afterlife -- so long as one presumes that a trans-physical (i.e. metaphysical) force is involved with the resurrection of bodies -- which most people would associate with God. Atheism taken in the sense that it doesn't deny the possibility of an afterlife (and from an obscure study in my memory, something like 40% of atheists don't believe that death is all) means that such things as capitalism, socialism, and such are philosophies compatible with life after death. In other words, it really doesn't mean much in this context to say that atheism is compatible with life after death. A philosophy of fishing is compatible with life after death. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that resurrection or post-mortem existence has been traditionally compatible with theistic or at least life-force philosophies; to claim that atheism doesn't rule out the possibility of an afterlife seems to mean to me that atheism doesn't rule out the possibility of theism. In other words, I fail to see how life after death is not associated with a metaphysical force typically considered theistic, and with this in mind how it is possible to consider atheism compatible with the metaphysics of theism.

I honestly find this a very hard question to articulate.

 

[Danhalen]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that resurrection or post-mortem existence has been traditionally compatible with theistic or at least life-force philosophies; to claim that atheism doesn't rule out the possibility of an afterlife seems to mean to me that atheism doesn't rule out the possibility of theism. In other words, I fail to see how life after death is not associated with a metaphysical force typically considered theistic, and with this in mind how it is possible to consider atheism compatible with the metaphysics of theism.

I honestly find this a very hard question to articulate.

Who ever said anything about a post-mortem existence? Does the belief in a soul necessarily imply the belief in a deity? Couldn't it be that the soul is the "life force"? A body can be made through genetic replication, but does it have life? What if the soul inhabits a place of waiting until it finds a body to inhabit? This is an extreme metaphysical concept which requires no deity to make it function.

I, personally, don't think this is the case. But it could be, and has been, taken to be the case of some atheists. Atheism does not necessarily divorce the metaphysical.

By the way, you don't despise me. You love me.

 

[Received]

You're right, and I agree. This is why I can't really make an argument -- rather, an appeal to tradition. I just find the implications of atheism by basically every atheist I've read about in history to exclude any possibility in post-mortem existence by virtue of the lack of metaphysics relevant to life after death. Typically today atheism is pervaded by logical positivism, which advocates the rigor of science, thus leaving no room for a metaphysical sphere of existence, leading to the conclusion that life after death cannot be -- for life after death is contingent on a metaphysical force, whether intelligent or not, in aiding in the resurrection of such a body. I suppose at least atheism intermingled with logical positivism is the point I'm trying to break down.

 

[Received]

And I do love you, especially now: check your wallet -- it shouldn't be there.

 

[Danhalen]

I suppose at least atheism intermingled with logical positivism is the point I'm trying to break down.

Then I propose you need to seperate the two ideas. You are correct in the conclusion that there needs to be an empirically valid documentation of "soul" in order to justify logical positivism with an after-life. If there ever is a time when this can be done, I assume that the metaphysics of "soul" would also be bound in empirical observation as well. Therefore metaphysics would still be invalid. I still will contend that there is a certain metaphysic to epistemology, and that brings logical positivism to a small paradox, but I'm not positive about that.

In any case, logical positivism and atheism need to be held as seperate things.

I love you too man. Now give me my damn wallet back. Give me Btodd's too.

 

[Received]

I think it is fair on a technical level that the two should be seperated; but in consideration of the current state of atheism, I don't think it is necessary that they should be. Interestingly, I doubt Eudaimonist is a logical positivist, so his case is an exception.

Your wallet is safe and sound. I would give you Brandon's, but considering the enormous mass of cash he's making at his current job, it's a little difficult to pry it from him now that he sleeps with it duct-taped to his hands.

 

[Danhalen]

I think it is fair on a technical level that the two should be seperated; but in consideration of the current state of atheism, I don't think it is necessary that they should be. Interestingly, I doubt Eudaimonist is a logical positivist, so his case is an exception.

I agree that the two are mostly taken as a package deal. I still think it is only right for the two to be evaluated as seperate entities and then compared and contrasted. As for me, I would say that I have strong logical positivist leanings, but I am beginning to doubt it on account of epistemology. If I could justify my acquisition of knowledge, in any form, I would have a better idea of where I stand. So far I think John Stuart Mill has the best ideas about it, and that drags me right back to logical positivism.

I assumed Eudaimonist was an objectivist, being a Rand fan and all. I could be wrong.

Your wallet is safe and sound. I would give you Brandon's, but considering the enormous mass of cash he's making at his current job, it's a little difficult to pry it from him now that he sleeps with it duct-taped to his hands.

I work in an auto repair facility. I can hook you up with some really potent solvents for disolving the adherent.

 

[LaserCool]

P.S. I love you icon thing. Lol, I have seen some people around this forum that blame Satan for things.

It captures the toungue-in-cheek way I like to look at the whole God vs. Devil thing. And it is reminicent of two funny events in my life:

1) Realizing that my first, middle and last names contain 6 letters each.... .

2) Being called "The Devil" by a schitzophrenic bum when I told him I was an athiest (he asked if I believed in God..), about the same time I realized the 666 thing with my name.

 

[vangelicmonk]

So I believe in a force if you will, I think it set evolution into motion, but its nothing to worship, nor a human like form. Its an it.. I believe Jesus walked the earth, I just don't believe I should follow him. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, but I do believe in a state of exsistence after death, or reincarnation. I believe I should live my life how I want to, and that I am in control of it.

So what exactly can my beliefs be categorized into?

That sounds like agnostic to me. Call it a "Force" or "god" or "creator" you still don't know what it is (agnostic), but you know it exists.

 

[b4uris]

So what exactly can my beliefs be categorized into?

Too weird to be labeled.

Just kidding

 

[Ioinc]

So I believe in a force if you will, I think it set evolution into motion, but its nothing to worship, nor a human like form. Its an it.. I believe Jesus walked the earth, I just don't believe I should follow him. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, but I do believe in a state of exsistence after death, or reincarnation. I believe I should live my life how I want to, and that I am in control of it.

So what exactly can my beliefs be categorized into?

16 year old that has not made a final decision yet (and does not need to)

 

[Ioinc]

Just curious... Are these really beliefs that you have? Or are they just thoughts on the subject?

What I mean is how can you base a belief in a God "force", when you have nothing to back in up.

I could write a book for you and you can show it to other people and read from it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I assumed Eudaimonist was an objectivist, being a Rand fan and all. I could be wrong.

For the record...

I haven't run across any empirical evidence, or philosophical reasons (based on metaphysical axioms, or whatever), to believe in life after death, so I remain unconvinced.

I'm not a logical positivist. That epistemology is Empiricism run amok. This is not to say that I'm Rationalistic. I reject the Rationalism/Empiricism dichotomy. I favor Ayn Rand's integration of reasoning and observation, which is a synthesis or "third way" approach. Certainly I think that observation is important to knowledge, but reasoning in terms of principles counts for a great deal as well. I could never subscribe to the verifiability criterion of meaning, for instance.

Whether or not I am an Objectivist depends on how closely I have to agree with Ayn Rand on philosophical matters to qualify. I agree with her on the essential issues, at least in broad outline, in each of the major branches of her philosophy, but I do not necessarily agree on all of the derivative ones. I could be considered an Objectivist, and I'm never offended if someone refers to me as one.

However, probe my views deeply enough and you are bound to find that some details are different, and you may also expansions on her ideas in directions she might not have anticipated. The differences are enough that I decided to describe myself as a "eudaimonist" (really referring to a category of philosophies) instead of an "Objectivist", and then later by the term "Eudaimonist" as it became accepted by the Fellowship of Reason, which I find is a philosophical match for me.