Quote:
|
then why do you even bother getting out of bed in the morning? what's the point of having the ability to reason? to contemplate? to have critical thought? if we shouldn't desire to know we shouldn't have the ability to think for ourselves. admittedly it would be super awesome to going back to being a baby and having someone take care of every single need i might have and 'not desiring to know' answers to bigger questions, but that's just not a realistic perspective.
|
@Bold: You are misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not at all saying that one should not use reason and that we can't know everything. I believe that we can know the reality as it is.
What I was saying is that the question "What is the cause of cause?" cannot be answered because of what you are asking. Forget about what the answer is. Answering the question with any answer at all produces a circular argument. In answering the question you are assuming that there is a cause to causation.
I see this problem as the same problem that lies with proving that A=A. You can't prove it, but it is impossible to disprove it because in order to disprove it, you must accept it. In order to disprove anything there must be a reason why; in this case one would have to point out a logical flaw. By acknowledging that causal law does not exist be
cause of a logical flaw, one acknowledges causal law.
Quote:
|
the answer to 'why?' is irrelevant, hence the purpose of personal belief.
|
"Why?" isn't a question in itself. "Why?" can be reworded as "What is the cause of?" There needs to be something that is caused for it to be a question.
To be honest, I really don't understand why this was included in your post.
Quote:
|
Atheism is most certainly a faith. It is a placement of one's belief in the unlimited and inerrant capacity and accuracy of human understanding regarding the nature of absolute reality, and subsequently in the notion that the divine does not exist.
|
There is no faith involved in accepting the validity of one's mind. There is belief put in one's mind, but it is justified in that logical belief has integrity. Outside of logic, there is no integrity, and there are contradictions. With contradictions comes the indefinite. Can you really believe in something that is undefined? What is undefined is not even a something. Ultimately, contradiction leaves to non-belief in the truest sense.
Unless you are crazy, you hold logic to have some value at some level. It might even only be on the most basic level, but it is enough for there to be some kind of belief.
Quote:
|
Does not believing in god immunize one from any of the ego's many perversions and their respective worldviews, such as the ones you listed, or is our natural proclivity toward such aberrance? Can religion itself always be used as a scapegoat for the presence of any of these limiting and dangerous world views, or is it our limited understanding of religion and our subsequent corresponding actions and worldviews which produce them? Can faith and reason coexist in an individual, in a community, in a global society, to move beyond such limiting worldviews to expand and evolve consciousness beyond such worldviews?
|
Atheism in itself is pretty foolish. I don't think atheism can even be considered a respectful title, for there are a myriad of positions among atheists that conflict. The popular ones of today don't know what they are talking about.
Faith is the cause of all irrational actions. I don't think one can blame theism on for religion's blunders. I care less about religion and more about accepting what exists as a primary. Unfortunately, this is not true for the majority of atheists and it is especially detrimental since many of them believe that they are protecting thought.