10 years a hardcore atheist, now i'm not sure what I am.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2016, 06:51 PM
10 years a hardcore atheist, now i'm not sure what I am.
I was delving into the philosophy of consciousness, when I happenchance upon a singular quote by a man named Goethe. Who lived in the 'age of enlightenment' anyways. The quote goes on to say that the brain is just a mechanism of observation much like how we see and hear. But sight and sound are not products of our awareness but rather they are what we are able to perceive thanks to our eyes and ears. The sound and the sights are separate from our ability to perceive. So Goethe concludes that the brain is like our ears and our eyes. Our mind does not generate consciousness so much as it amplifies/intensifies its awareness.

That is the basic of what Goethe said, except he did it in a much more eloquent manner. This theory went hand in hand with what the Greeks called the Logos something I had been batting at like a cat for a while trying to explain why anything happens at all.

But going past that, god is often depicted as an 'all powerful' being or is capable of altering the lives of others. In essence, god would exist. In that nature is the closest thing to god, nature is pretty much all powerful, nature is conscious, and nature is capable of altering the lives of people.

And for all of you who would say nature is conscious, even without goethe and the logos. Humans are a part of nature, and we are very much conscious, therefore since we are a part of nature and by no means separate from nature that nature is also consciously aware if only through us. Essentially this makes nature god not as a singular entity but in its entirety.

I think I'm a pantheist. I do not believe in 'god' but I would be hard pressed right now not to consider nature divine, and not divine in a supernatural sense but divine in only a naturalistic and secular sense. I would say kind of like Buddhism but if you ever got into the nitty gritty of that religion it does delve into the supernatural quite a bit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2016, 07:09 PM
RE: 10 years a hardcore atheist, now i'm not sure what I am.
(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I was delving into the philosophy of consciousness, when I happenchance upon a singular quote by a man named Goethe. Who lived in the 'age of enlightenment' anyways. The quote goes on to say that the brain is just a mechanism of observation much like how we see and hear. But sight and sound are not products of our awareness but rather they are what we are able to perceive thanks to our eyes and ears. The sound and the sights are separate from our ability to perceive. So Goethe concludes that the brain is like our ears and our eyes. Our mind does not generate consciousness so much as it amplifies/intensifies its awareness.

That is the basic of what Goethe said, except he did it in a much more eloquent manner. This theory went hand in hand with what the Greeks called the Logos something I had been batting at like a cat for a while trying to explain why anything happens at all.

But going past that, god is often depicted as an 'all powerful' being or is capable of altering the lives of others. In essence, god would exist. In that nature is the closest thing to god, nature is pretty much all powerful, nature is conscious, and nature is capable of altering the lives of people.

And for all of you who would say nature is conscious, even without goethe and the logos. Humans are a part of nature, and we are very much conscious, therefore since we are a part of nature and by no means separate from nature that nature is also consciously aware if only through us. Essentially this makes nature god not as a singular entity but in its entirety.

I think I'm a pantheist. I do not believe in 'god' but I would be hard pressed right now not to consider nature divine, and not divine in a supernatural sense but divine in only a naturalistic and secular sense. I would say kind of like Buddhism but if you ever got into the nitty gritty of that religion it does delve into the supernatural quite a bit.

I'll certainly agree that some pieces of nature (including us) are conscious. Do you think that makes all of nature conscious?

More importantly, to what is this relevant? In what way does this new paradigm change your actions, perspectives, interactions, preferences, or anything else beyond the language you use to describe yourself?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2016, 07:25 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2016 07:30 PM by Celestial_Wonder.)
RE: 10 years a hardcore atheist, now i'm not sure what I am.
(14-11-2016 07:09 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I was delving into the philosophy of consciousness, when I happenchance upon a singular quote by a man named Goethe. Who lived in the 'age of enlightenment' anyways. The quote goes on to say that the brain is just a mechanism of observation much like how we see and hear. But sight and sound are not products of our awareness but rather they are what we are able to perceive thanks to our eyes and ears. The sound and the sights are separate from our ability to perceive. So Goethe concludes that the brain is like our ears and our eyes. Our mind does not generate consciousness so much as it amplifies/intensifies its awareness.

That is the basic of what Goethe said, except he did it in a much more eloquent manner. This theory went hand in hand with what the Greeks called the Logos something I had been batting at like a cat for a while trying to explain why anything happens at all.

But going past that, god is often depicted as an 'all powerful' being or is capable of altering the lives of others. In essence, god would exist. In that nature is the closest thing to god, nature is pretty much all powerful, nature is conscious, and nature is capable of altering the lives of people.

And for all of you who would say nature is conscious, even without goethe and the logos. Humans are a part of nature, and we are very much conscious, therefore since we are a part of nature and by no means separate from nature that nature is also consciously aware if only through us. Essentially this makes nature god not as a singular entity but in its entirety.

I think I'm a pantheist. I do not believe in 'god' but I would be hard pressed right now not to consider nature divine, and not divine in a supernatural sense but divine in only a naturalistic and secular sense. I would say kind of like Buddhism but if you ever got into the nitty gritty of that religion it does delve into the supernatural quite a bit.

I'll certainly agree that some pieces of nature (including us) are conscious. Do you think that makes all of nature conscious?

More importantly, to what is this relevant? In what way does this new paradigm change your actions, perspectives, interactions, preferences, or anything else beyond the language you use to describe yourself?

What better relationship can there be than to have a relationship with the universe? In its majestic beauty I am left speechless and in awe, and I search to know more about her. Ever inquiring about her qualities and characteristics, it doesn't matter if it doesn't change anything. Just so long as I can come to know her and to be one with her.

Love changes how people act, and what greater love is there than to love everything in existence?

It does more than describe myself, through my intellectual pursuits, I hope to learn more about the origins of all things. Like an orphan seeking to know who his or her parents were, I waver, did my parents not want me and that is why they abandoned me? Or were they forced by fate to be separated? We are inquisitive beings and our curiosity knows no boundaries though fear tends to herd us at times, even the most cowardly among us has courage in their hearts, and there can be no greater endeavor, than the search for truth.

For our beliefs define much more than who we are, but it defines how we will act. If my parents abandoned me out of selfishness, I would act that my child would not have to experience the same thing I did, if they left me out of selflessness or by fate, I would treat my child as I would have wanted from my parents giving them a childhood full of love. Not that I am an orphan, or am I not? For are we not all children of heaven? of the earth which is by extension a part of the universe? Yet we do not know much about or universal mother (or father).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2016, 07:49 PM
RE: 10 years a hardcore atheist, now i'm not sure what I am.
(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Our mind does not generate consciousness so much as it amplifies/intensifies its awareness.

As you noted, this was during the enlightenment. According to our current knowledge of science, consciousness is a byproduct of the chemical reactions in our brains.

(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  This theory went hand in hand with what the Greeks called the Logos something I had been batting at like a cat for a while trying to explain why anything happens at all.

Things happen. If certain particular things did not happen, other things would.
Things happen. You happen. You are here and aware.
Why this happened or how this happened is not important.

There are more important questions to ponder.
What will you do with your time here?
What meaning will you find for your life?

(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But going past that, god is often depicted as an 'all powerful' being or is capable of altering the lives of others. In essence, god would exist. In that nature is the closest thing to god, nature is pretty much all powerful, nature is conscious, and nature is capable of altering the lives of people.

You were talking about consciousness and now god. Self awareness does not imply the existence of any god. Nature is not all powerful. If you define nature as our world, our biosphere, then no, it is not all-powerful. Not even close.

The world as we know it, will end. Nature will end. Science has calculated a time span both for the end of our planet, and potentially for the end of the universe itself. This is not all powerful.

(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  And for all of you who would say nature is conscious, even without goethe and the logos. Humans are a part of nature, and we are very much conscious, therefore since we are a part of nature and by no means separate from nature that nature is also consciously aware if only through us. Essentially this makes nature god not as a singular entity but in its entirety.

Absolutely false. We are aware. We are part of nature, i.e. the natural world. This does not have any implications regarding a god or deity. There is no "entity" behind nature to be aware of us or through us.

Worshiping nature or believing in the divinity of nature is a very old concept. But there is no secular or scientific basis for it. The idea boils down to wishful thinking.

(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I think I'm a pantheist. I do not believe in 'god' but I would be hard pressed right now not to consider nature divine, and not divine in a supernatural sense but divine in only a naturalistic and secular sense. I would say kind of like Buddhism but if you ever got into the nitty gritty of that religion it does delve into the supernatural quite a bit.

Divine is supernatural by definition. Secular or natural divinity is a contradiction in terms.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
14-11-2016, 08:13 PM
RE: 10 years a hardcore atheist, now i'm not sure what I am.
(14-11-2016 07:49 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Our mind does not generate consciousness so much as it amplifies/intensifies its awareness.

As you noted, this was during the enlightenment. According to our current knowledge of science, consciousness is a byproduct of the chemical reactions in our brains.

(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  This theory went hand in hand with what the Greeks called the Logos something I had been batting at like a cat for a while trying to explain why anything happens at all.

Things happen. If certain particular things did not happen, other things would.
Things happen. You happen. You are here and aware.
Why this happened or how this happened is not important.

There are more important questions to ponder.
What will you do with your time here?
What meaning will you find for your life?

(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  But going past that, god is often depicted as an 'all powerful' being or is capable of altering the lives of others. In essence, god would exist. In that nature is the closest thing to god, nature is pretty much all powerful, nature is conscious, and nature is capable of altering the lives of people.

You were talking about consciousness and now god. Self awareness does not imply the existence of any god. Nature is not all powerful. If you define nature as our world, our biosphere, then no, it is not all-powerful. Not even close.

The world as we know it, will end. Nature will end. Science has calculated a time span both for the end of our planet, and potentially for the end of the universe itself. This is not all powerful.

(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  And for all of you who would say nature is conscious, even without goethe and the logos. Humans are a part of nature, and we are very much conscious, therefore since we are a part of nature and by no means separate from nature that nature is also consciously aware if only through us. Essentially this makes nature god not as a singular entity but in its entirety.

Absolutely false. We are aware. We are part of nature, i.e. the natural world. This does not have any implications regarding a god or deity. There is no "entity" behind nature to be aware of us or through us.

Worshiping nature or believing in the divinity of nature is a very old concept. But there is no secular or scientific basis for it. The idea boils down to wishful thinking.

(14-11-2016 06:51 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I think I'm a pantheist. I do not believe in 'god' but I would be hard pressed right now not to consider nature divine, and not divine in a supernatural sense but divine in only a naturalistic and secular sense. I would say kind of like Buddhism but if you ever got into the nitty gritty of that religion it does delve into the supernatural quite a bit.

Divine is supernatural by definition. Secular or natural divinity is a contradiction in terms.


Divine is not necessarily supernatural by definition

.1
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love>
b : being a deity <the divine Savior>
c : directed to a deity <divine worship>
2
a : supremely good : superb <the pie was divine>
b : heavenly, godlike

We're going with 2 b on this definition of what can be considered divine.

And as for how I define nature, I define nature as the entire cosmos, all of existence. Nature after all is where Natural comes from. Natura,

So since Nature by definition includes the cosmos, it is heavenly, since it is the most powerful force known to mankind, it is godlike. Ergo nature is divine.

I also don't believe in the big bang theory and I haven't for about 5 years now soooo I don't believe the universe is going to end. I stopped believing in the big bang theory in the peak of my atheist years. So I believe the universe is eternal as well as infinite.

A byproduct or a product of chemical reactions? I'd say the brain and its intended function is very much a product and not a byproduct.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2016, 08:21 PM
RE: 10 years a hardcore atheist, now i'm not sure what I am.
(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Divine is not necessarily supernatural by definition

.1
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love> A god is supernatural Drinking Beverage

b : being a deity <the divine Savior> a deity is supernatural Drinking Beverage Why the reference to a savior? Sounds like your referring to Jesus, who is a mythical supernatural deity.

c : directed to a deity <divine worship> A deity is supernatural Drinking Beverage What's this stuff about worship? Are you asserting that a deity talks to you and this is what it wants?
2
a : supremely good : superb <the pie was divine> "Supremely" is ill-defined, as is your god. Drinking Beverage

b : heavenly, godlike gods are supernatural. Drinking Beverage

If you're defining nature as god, then why would it need worship or a savior?

You're loading a lot of assumptions into these terms.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
14-11-2016, 08:33 PM
RE: 10 years a hardcore atheist, now i'm not sure what I am.
(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Divine is not necessarily supernatural by definition

.1
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love>
b : being a deity <the divine Savior>
c : directed to a deity <divine worship>
2
a : supremely good : superb <the pie was divine>
b : heavenly, godlike

It is a sign of a weak argument, when word games are required to justify a belief. Definitions 2a & 2b both define natural things that are good enough to be compared to the supernatural. However the wording directly refutes the subject being supernatural.

(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  We're going with 2 b on this definition of what can be considered divine.

Since 2a and 2b are essentially the same, you could justify worshiping the pie because of it's divinity.

Is our lord and savior Pie, apple, cherry or 3.14?

(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  And as for how I define nature, I define nature as the entire cosmos, all of existence. Nature after all is where Natural comes from.

And according to our scientific knowledge this cosmos will likely end at a predictable point in the future. That is not divinity. That is not supernatural.

(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  So since Nature by definition includes the cosmos, it is heavenly, since it is the most powerful force known to mankind, it is godlike. Ergo nature is divine.

According to your definition, you have defined nature as like a god, like divinity, but not actually divine. That is the key point between the definitions. Definitions 1a/b describe actual supernatural divinity. Definitions 2a/b define things that are like divinity but not actually divine.

That difference is like night and day.

(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I also don't believe in the big bang theory and I haven't for about 5 years now soooo I don't believe the universe is going to end. I stopped believing in the big bang theory in the peak of my atheist years. So I believe the universe is eternal as well as infinite.

You can believe whatever you want up and until you express that belief to others. At that point, you will be expected to justify or support your beliefs. If you cannot do so, then no one else has any reason to share those beliefs.

The Big Bang Theory is our current, best explanation for the beginning of our universe. Until the BBT is both disproved and replaced by superior understanding, I see no reason to disregard it.

(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  A byproduct or a product of chemical reactions? I'd say the brain and its intended function is very much a product and not a byproduct.

There is no "intended" function. Intended by who/what?

The brain is made up of chemicals, as is the rest of our bodies. The chemical processes in our brains give rise to the thought processes that led to self awareness.

Everything that makes you who you are, emotions, desires, memories, everything, can all be changed by a variety of external sources. Drugs, physical damage, chemical imbalance, age deterioration, disease.

That makes awareness a byproduct of the physical, chemical processes going on inside your brain.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
14-11-2016, 08:34 PM
RE: 10 years a hardcore atheist, now i'm not sure what I am.
(14-11-2016 08:21 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Divine is not necessarily supernatural by definition

.1
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love> A god is supernatural Drinking Beverage

b : being a deity <the divine Savior> a deity is supernatural Drinking Beverage Why the reference to a savior? Sounds like your referring to Jesus, who is a mythical supernatural deity.

c : directed to a deity <divine worship> A deity is supernatural Drinking Beverage What's this stuff about worship? Are you asserting that a deity talks to you and this is what it wants?
2
a : supremely good : superb <the pie was divine> "Supremely" is ill-defined, as is your god. Drinking Beverage

b : heavenly, godlike gods are supernatural. Drinking Beverage

If you're defining nature as god, then why would it need worship or a savior?

You're loading a lot of assumptions into these terms.

In the realm of assumptions you are just as guilty of a party, i'm not defining nature as god, I'm just saying that by definitions, what I believe could indeed be on the loosest levels called a god so much so that I don't think I can consider myself an atheist any longer.

As for the guilt you bear, you made the assumption that a god would need worship, having said that I do feel adoring reverence for the beauty of the universe, which includes our little paradise on earth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2016, 08:43 PM
RE: 10 years a hardcore atheist, now i'm not sure what I am.
(14-11-2016 08:34 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 08:21 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  If you're defining nature as god, then why would it need worship or a savior?

You're loading a lot of assumptions into these terms.

In the realm of assumptions you are just as guilty of a party, i'm not defining nature as god, I'm just saying that by definitions, what I believe could indeed be on the loosest levels called a god so much so that I don't think I can consider myself an atheist any longer.

As for the guilt you bear, you made the assumption that a god would need worship, having said that I do feel adoring reverence for the beauty of the universe, which includes our little paradise on earth.

You're not defining nature as god? Here is your own words from post 5:

Quote:And as for how I define nature, I define nature as the entire cosmos, all of existence. Nature after all is where Natural comes from. Natura,

So since Nature by definition includes the cosmos, it is heavenly, since it is the most powerful force known to mankind, it is godlike. Ergo nature is divine.

You also mentioned "divine worship" in your post as well as "divine Savior" with a capital S.

Quit playing your dishonest games.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
14-11-2016, 08:49 PM
RE: 10 years a hardcore atheist, now i'm not sure what I am.
(14-11-2016 08:33 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  Divine is not necessarily supernatural by definition

.1
a : of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love>
b : being a deity <the divine Savior>
c : directed to a deity <divine worship>
2
a : supremely good : superb <the pie was divine>
b : heavenly, godlike

It is a sign of a weak argument, when word games are required to justify a belief. Definitions 2a & 2b both define natural things that are good enough to be compared to the supernatural. However the wording directly refutes the subject being supernatural.

(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  We're going with 2 b on this definition of what can be considered divine.

Since 2a and 2b are essentially the same, you could justify worshiping the pie because of it's divinity.

Is our lord and savior Pie, apple, cherry or 3.14?

(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  And as for how I define nature, I define nature as the entire cosmos, all of existence. Nature after all is where Natural comes from.

And according to our scientific knowledge this cosmos will likely end at a predictable point in the future. That is not divinity. That is not supernatural.

(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  So since Nature by definition includes the cosmos, it is heavenly, since it is the most powerful force known to mankind, it is godlike. Ergo nature is divine.

According to your definition, you have defined nature as like a god, like divinity, but not actually divine. That is the key point between the definitions. Definitions 1a/b describe actual supernatural divinity. Definitions 2a/b define things that are like divinity but not actually divine.

That difference is like night and day.

(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  I also don't believe in the big bang theory and I haven't for about 5 years now soooo I don't believe the universe is going to end. I stopped believing in the big bang theory in the peak of my atheist years. So I believe the universe is eternal as well as infinite.

You can believe whatever you want up and until you express that belief to others. At that point, you will be expected to justify or support your beliefs. If you cannot do so, then no one else has any reason to share those beliefs.

The Big Bang Theory is our current, best explanation for the beginning of our universe. Until the BBT is both disproved and replaced by superior understanding, I see no reason to disregard it.

(14-11-2016 08:13 PM)Celestial_Wonder Wrote:  A byproduct or a product of chemical reactions? I'd say the brain and its intended function is very much a product and not a byproduct.

There is no "intended" function. Intended by who/what?

The brain is made up of chemicals, as is the rest of our bodies. The chemical processes in our brains give rise to the thought processes that led to self awareness.

Everything that makes you who you are, emotions, desires, memories, everything, can all be changed by a variety of external sources. Drugs, physical damage, chemical imbalance, age deterioration, disease.

That makes awareness a byproduct of the physical, chemical processes going on inside your brain.

Intended for us, it is by no mistake that trillions of life forms on this planet have brains. Animals with brains can outwit animals without brains at least normally. Like the jellyfish, if we see a jellyfish our brains tell us to stay clear of them. The jellyfish does not have a brain, if it did have a brain it would make more choice decisions for acquiring pray rather than just floating in the ocean. Despite not having a brain though the jellyfish has been remarkably resilient through the history of the earth, being the only Cambrian life form I know off. 500 million years of success.

Everything of who I am can be altered yes, but I will still be as conscious as I am now, unless I happen to become either a vegetable, or I die. Then I'm not so sure what happens with my consciousness, certainly I would cease to be aware, and my corporeal body would disintegrate, but if what makes consciousness is merely on the level of say something like gamma rays (which our eyes perceive as light). I would continue on in my 'ethereal' form which could be the very fabric of the universe itself. and granted I would not be I at all and i most certainly would be dead I will be dead for all eternity. For as long as there is there will never be another me. The joys of individualism.

I don't make the definitions, I just play by them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: