How to find spirituality or a sense of deeper meaning as an atheist / agnostic

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
16,291
And alongside Determinism we have the only 3 states of matter, solid, liquid and gas :rolleyes:
Well I saw you mixing time in. I agree with that.
But then people get really creative when they start talking about time so I'm not sure if we should go into that black hole.

For me. The past is gone, done, no going back. 100% linier and the choice you make is the reality you get. No alternative universe nonsense.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,280
Well I saw you mixing time in. I agree with that.
But then people get really creative when they start talking about time so I'm not sure if we should go into that black hole.

For me. The past is gone, done, no going back. 100% linier and the choice you make is the reality you get. No alternative universe nonsense.
That's the thing. I didn't "mix" time into it. Determinism/Freewill is the 2D quasi-crystal of the 3D argument. Time is the when of the freewill/deterministic argument.
Without it, neither have any meaning beyond a single outcome.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
16,291
That's the thing. I didn't "mix" time into it. Determinism/Freewill is the 2D quasi-crystal of the 3D argument. Time is the when of the freewill/deterministic argument.
Without it, neither have any meaning beyond a single outcome.
We only live in the present.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,335
We only live in the present.
So how do you reconcile this with your religion being all about the past?

Thousands of years ago. Not that there was any proof then, but since that time - no evidence or any visitations of any god, from any religion.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,724
Nope. My mom, maths and science is testable, verifiable and demonstrably logical with tons of evidence. Over and over again. That's what's so great about science. It doesn't care about the way you feel or how you think about something. My mom is real because I can see her. I can also see the words you're typing on this page, so I know your account exists and so does everyone else. Do you honestly think the universe is not an unbroken chain of cause and effect events stemming from the big bang or a point of origin then I don't see how you even have a world-view to begin with.
You deny that there are objectively true and good morals we can discover via observation, reason and logic yet you want to tell people that there are objectively true facts about reality that we can discover via science using observation, reason and logic.

However, science is not some magical fairy that generates objective knowledge on its own. It is a process carried out by people. By undercutting our ability to generate objective knowledge you basically undercut the scientific enterprise.

Now I am very glad that you defend causality. It is essential to classical theism. It is not common among atheists though and the reason is David Hume among others. I wonder how you have circumvented David Hume to accept that causality is true. That should be very interesting and entertaining. The floor is yours!
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,724
Out of context/cherry picking.
Our senses developed to observe what we do, as directly linked to our survival.
That does not preclude the ability to understand that our observation is limited or to seek methods by which to better understand.

Intellect is not a sense, it is what has allowed us to discover what our sense have not.
Help me understand how the following sentences can all be true:
1) We can understand the nature of our reality
2) We're not actually observing the universe as is, because we're not capable of observing it all.
3) What we observe is manifest and directly linked to our ability to survive/live. It is utility, and subjective utility, nothing more.

There is no out of context or cherry picking. All I want is to understand how a person can think all three are true.
 

EADC

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
4,727
Help me understand how the following sentences can all be true:
1) We can understand the nature of our reality
2) We're not actually observing the universe as is, because we're not capable of observing it all.
3) What we observe is manifest and directly linked to our ability to survive/live. It is utility, and subjective utility, nothing more.

There is no out of context or cherry picking. All I want is to understand how a person can think all three are true.
I would imagine lack of introspection and a lack of understanding what they read.
 

Mars

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
10,259
I can't even understand how Sam Harris or some other Internet atheist could have convinced so many people of determanism. It doesn't even fit with the rest of their world view. You 1stly need to be extremely fundamentally religions to believe in determanism and secondly you need to interpret that religion incorrectly along the lines of God has already determined everyones destiny. And not just big picture, every small detail is planned out if you are hard deterministic.
How can people be comfortable with commenting on something when they clearly have little to no understanding on the subject?
You should really spend a bit of time learning about something before you form an opinion of it.

A couple of points:
  • "Determinism is the philosophical idea that all events, including moral choices, are determined completely by previously existing causes " - How you distil that into somehow "to be extremely fundamentally religious" and that "every small detail is planned out if you" is quite amazing.
  • Sam Harris did not invent it. It came about in the 6th century by Greek philosophers.
At least give the Wikipedia page a peruse before you comment.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,724
I can't even understand how Sam Harris or some other Internet atheist could have convinced so many people of determanism. It doesn't even fit with the rest of their world view. You 1stly need to be extremely fundamentally religions to believe in determanism and secondly you need to interpret that religion incorrectly along the lines of God has already determined everyones destiny. And not just big picture, every small detail is planned out if you are hard deterministic.
Well if Sam Harris' mommy of Golden Girls fame didn't pull a few strings to get publicity for his first book nobody would have really cared what he has to say. He is just so dopey and ignorant when it comes to philosophy. He also calls himself a scientist... which a bad joke at the moment. He should maybe try to do some research again.
 
Last edited:

C4Cat

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
8,936
Well if Sam Harris' mommy of Golden Girl fame didn't pull a few strings to get publicity for his first book nobody would have really cared what he has to say. He is just so dopey and ignorant when it comes to philosophy. He also calls himself a scientist... which a bad joke at the moment. He should maybe try to do some research again.
You sound jealous and bitter tbh.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
24,333
What's step two?
My own experience is that if I'd known what Step Two is before thoroughly completing Step One I'd never have finished Step One.

First have to remove myself from the seat occupied by the deity, and that's much easier said than done. That's the atheism one has to embrace in Step One.

"When the student is ready the master appears". ;)
 

saor

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
20,736
I'm curious how spirituality is defined in the absence of religious context.

It sometimes feels a bit like the way people use the word 'god' generically - like they'll say they're not religious but still believe in god, which seems somewhat paradoxical: To describe the thing you believe using the language of religion gets confusing. Is 'spirituality' the same, or does it's meaning have more independence than 'god' from religious context?
 

Prawnapple

Expert Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
1,157
Nope your understanding of that is incomplete. Our freedom is constrained by reality and the natural world and every other free agent and is most certainly subject to cause and effect. I'm a realistic libertarian. I cannot choose to flout off into space, but I can choose every single small action/decision that I make. We also have an auto pilot(you can act subconsciously) and can go through life with that on, it is very useful, for mundane repetitive task like breathing, but don't mistake that for determanism.
See, that's where you're wrong Riet, you think you're consciously making "every small decision/action" but determinism (and supporting experiments) tells us that you're only conscious of the action the moment you make the action. "You are free to do what you will, but you aren't free to will what you will." or as Schopenhauer put it, "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants'. That is the point I'm trying to make. Determinism debunks religion in 1 foul swoop. You're confusing this with theists who say "God has already worked everything out" that's likely just an ignorant way of saying, "everything is determined" but for some reason, trying to bring a deity into the argument.

You deny that there are objectively true and good morals we can discover via observation, reason and logic yet you want to tell people that there are objectively true facts about reality that we can discover via science using observation, reason and logic.

However, science is not some magical fairy that generates objective knowledge on its own. It is a process carried out by people. By undercutting our ability to generate objective knowledge you basically undercut the scientific enterprise.

Now I am very glad that you defend causality. It is essential to classical theism. It is not common among atheists though and the reason is David Hume among others. I wonder how you have circumvented David Hume to accept that causality is true. That should be very interesting and entertaining. The floor is yours!
"It is not common among atheists though"
-I guess this is just an opinion as it's quite the opposite in the circles I hang in.

"You deny that there are objectively true and good morals we can discover via observation, reason and logic yet you want to tell people that there are objectively true facts about reality that we can discover via science using observation, reason and logic."
-Okay, I may have misrepresented myself here. There are objective scientific truths in the current time / era. Example, Carbon atoms exist. This is testable, verifiable and knowable all around the world, wherever we can test for Carbon atoms. Will this still be the case in a million / trillion years? Who knows. If the heat death is a real thing, then there will literally be no more Carbon atoms in a trillion years, essentially meaning that the fact that "Carbon atoms exist" is not an eternal scientific fact. So in that sense, I was wrong. There is no such thing as an absolute truth.

Anyway, I've veered off course a little here. It's an interesting discussion and debate to have nonetheless.
 
Last edited:
Top