aphilosophy

[Typist]

I seem to remember spending 3 months trying to tell Typist that Atheism is an exploration of nothing, but he kept on insisting that atheism was a belief system!

Your relentless insistence that atheism is not a belief system is part of the atheism belief system.

If you'd like to see more of the atheist belief system, please reference your own posts.

You spent 3 months defending the holy atheist dogma which you've attached your personal identity to.

Now that your personal identity is bonded to atheism, you will emotionally defend it at all costs, and will eagerly dismiss any intellectually honest, reason based analysis that threatens your chosen identity.

Just like the theists you are attempting to debunk.

You have become that which you hate.

[Arising_uk]

Back on the same old saw I see.

Any chance you'll be saying anything useful about your 'aphilosophy'?

[duszek]

A joke told by Michael Pemulis in "Infinite Jest":

A prayer line has been made for atheists. Whenever someone calls the number nobody picks up the receiver.

[Mark Question]

Part of my proposal to you is that if more folks had more "enoughness" there'd be less need for religion. Religion is a means to an end. Meet the ends by some other method, and religion is no longer needed.

so, if more folks had more "enoughness" there'd be less need for your philosophical proposal about aphilosophy and practicing aphilosophy at all? maybe also less need for philosophy, but also less need for "enoughness", aphilosophy, love, life,..? all that seems to go where your may have pointed it, but your proposal lies in thinking? as the promise, pointing the way to heaven lies in believing? and if more folks had more "love" there'd be less need for following the jesus? are these all the same, belief systems or what? any philosophical thoughts about that? or is it like asking any atheistic thoughts about theism? and like religions, the more we criticise them for being religious, the more we prove them to be religions? and the more we criticise aphilosophy for being aphilosophical, the more we prove it to be aphilosophy? and the more we promote aphilosophy for being philosophically good idea and worth a try, the more we prove it to be not aphilosophy?

Like giving a drug user another way to get high. The drugs are just the surface level, merely a means. It's the high they want.

so, aphilosophy is a getting high-technique? why not going to those meetings where people are healed and speaking in tonques? or just rave dancing, benji jumping or many other ways?

The fundamental flaw in atheism is the same flaw found in theism. It tries to address the problem with thought. It tries to put out the fire by poring more gasoline on the flames, and thus becomes part of the very process it rejects.

and you thought that you have adressed the problem with thought? thought that answer is aphilosophy? how aphilosophical thinking that must be to you and to philosophers, or what?
so, aphilosophy tries to put out the fire by suffocating it and keep it ready to burn again? or is it just trying to offer slower burning to us, like medieval inquisitor? what if bigger flames means faster burning until theres nothing to burn? analogies are good tools to speaker?

[melonkali]

I can't figure out if I'm the baby, or the ass. I'm sure some poster will help me solve this vexing riddle.

DUDE!!! You're overthinking this one. Just chill out and "become one with the cute". rebecca

[Typist]

DUDE!!! You're overthinking this one. Just chill out and "become one with the cute". rebecca

That's it, that's it!

Eureka, I'm one with the cute, a tooty toot toot!

Thanks Rebecca!

[Arising_uk]

A joke told by Michael Pemulis in "Infinite Jest":

A prayer line has been made for atheists. Whenever someone calls the number nobody picks up the receiver.

Funny! Except they won't be making the call in the first place.

[bran]

Dude...

Great image!

A baby and a dead donkey.

Oh no, chaz. It's actually a donkey and a dead baby. What made you think the donkey is dead?

Bran

[bran]

I'm getting the impression that aphilosophers pursue wonder and awe in the manner that philosophers pursue wisdom and truth, the former being much more accessible if only one has the eyes to see it. I imagine aphilosophy to be a right-brain activity while philosophy is more a left-brain activity. The supreme expression of philosophy is a syllogism; the supreme expression of aphilosophy on the contrary is a Zen koan.

Am I way off in these comparisons?

Bran

[Arising_uk]

Nice thoughts Bran but can one not be in awe and wonder at the syllogism? That logic and reason exist?

[Typist]

I'm getting the impression that aphilosophers pursue wonder and awe in the manner that philosophers pursue wisdom and truth, the former being much more accessible if only one has the eyes to see it.

That's a reasonable way to say it. Let's explore your description a bit.

The key word in your description is "pursue". What is it exactly that is doing the pursuing? Thought. Let's watch it in action.

First, as we've discussed, thought is inherently divisive, that's it's nature. Water is wet, thought is divisive. Everything flows from this fundamental fact.

"Pursue" implies a movement through time, right? In reality, every moment is now. Thought conceptually divides the now in to past, present and future. Time is an invention of thought.

Having created the abstraction we call time, thought then begins comparing one part of this abstraction to another. Thought says, "I have X in the present, and in the future I want Y." "I', "present" and "future" are all inventions of thought. And pursuing is born.

It's indisputably true that aphilosophy writings are loaded to the rafters with pursuing. It's also true that probably everybody who becomes interested in aphilosophy is pursuing something, and the main question is "what's in it for me?" It seems true as well that the experience of pursuing is the engine that drives most exploration of aphilosophy.

But....

As we've seen, pursuing is thought. Every element of pursuing is an abstraction invented by thought. To the degree we are focused on abstractions, we aren't focused on the real world.

So ultimately, aphilosophy isn't really pursuing, but a letting go of pursuing. That is, a step out of time, in to now. A step out of abstractions, in to reality.

Pursuing awe, wonder and other nice experiences is a helpful entry way in to aphilosophy. At some point, the pursuit of these experiences becomes more an obstacle than an asset, and the pursuit has to be dropped if we wish to explore further.

------------

PS: One of the reasons I don't talk about my own experiences much is I'm wary of stirring up the experience of pursuing in the reader. Pursuing is inevitable, I accept that, but hopefully I'm not deliberately poring fuel on the fire, at least, hopefully I'm keeping it to a minimum.

It's tricky. This is the net, and the net is show business. Our job as posters is to put on some kind of a show, and this inevitably involves dangling something interesting in front of the reader's nose.

But, you hesitate to dangle too many carrots in front of the reader, when you know that sincere aphilosophy students will eventually face the job of throwing all these carrots away.

[evangelicalhumanist]

Your relentless insistence that atheism is not a belief system is part of the atheism belief system.

And yet, to me, your insistence that atheism is a “belief” is the same sort of thing as defining starvation as a style of eating.

belief n.
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Speaking more to definition 3 above, and though I am aware that you don’t accept the difference, the atheist does not “believe that there is no god.” The atheist rather “does not believe that there is a god.” Lack of belief is not a belief, any more than an empty refrigerator contains a kind of food.

You (I presume) do not believe that there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn, but I seriously doubt that you hold this as a belief system, and that you are therefore an a-corn.

[Typist]

And yet, to me, your insistence that atheism is a “belief” is the same sort of thing as defining starvation as a style of eating.

If you really really really want to go over this yet another time, I will try to be a good sport, and return the favor you have extended by lending your time to an examination of my own perspectives. I promise you you will not be happy with the outcome of that conversation, but I leave that decision in your hands.

...you are therefore an a-corn.

Ok, now I can go along with this. I think I will embrace the label a-corn, before I get stamped with something worse.

A picture of your brain on aphilosophy!



I hereby decline to make any comments of a base and suggestive nature, except that I just did.

[bran]

I agree that atheism is a "belief system" because I have enjoyed conversations with enough atheists in enough environments and conversing about enough common topics to clearly see a pattern of commonly held beliefs that is as consistent as those of most religious groups I have known. This doesn't require that ALL atheists have identical beliefs; all Christians and Pagans and Muslims certainly do not have identical beliefs--although this is one of the common atheist misattributions. It's not a formal belief system with any one person or high council establishing what atheists should believe. It is rather the natural tendency of humans to seek affiliation in their beliefs, to find others who have similar beliefs and to build upon those similarities in order to strengthen the bonds of affiliation. But I do not doubt for an instant that atheism is a belief system.

I'm not quite so sure that aphilosophy is or ever will become a "belief system". For one thing, doing so would destroy it; it would come into conflict with its fundamental notions. It's rather Zen in its approach to philosophy and the activities of mind. I have a friend, Theoretika the Unicorn, who serves as an advisor on matters of philosophy and religion. She has long ago told me that the animal community rather pities mankind because of its infection with codified language and thought. It is a prison of the mind, she says. What is essential is best communicated by the eyes, the face, the movement and actions of the body. I write these words, these scratches in the dirt, and my mind functions by use of these words, but I think I get the drift of her message. Animals are here and now people, but humans live so much more in the past and future. And we are less accepting of our own existences than animals are; we insist upon meaning and understanding our place in the whole of things--which of course is why we make gods to begin with.

I'm a right stout Taoist and distant patron of Buddhist philosophy, but I'm not ready for either atheism or aphilosophy. I do believe (note that term) that the gods we know are all man-made, but only because the divine is quite too inhumanly vast and transcendent for us to comprehend, or if we could comprehend, to feel any affection for. We are like blind men describing the elephant. One man speaks for science, another for religion, and yet another for the poet and artist. We feel of it and identify it in our own various terminologies; then we argue over words. Theoretika is right, you know.

Bran

[Typist]

I agree that atheism is a "belief system" because I have enjoyed conversations with enough atheists in enough environments and conversing about enough common topics to clearly see a pattern of commonly held beliefs that is as consistent as those of most religious groups I have known.

Thank you.

This doesn't require that ALL atheists have identical beliefs; all Christians and Pagans and Muslims certainly do not have identical beliefs

Agreed.

It's not a formal belief system with any one person or high council establishing what atheists should believe. It is rather the natural tendency of humans to seek affiliation in their beliefs, to find others who have similar beliefs and to build upon those similarities in order to strengthen the bonds of affiliation.

Well said, well said. You are now my official speech writer on this topic, and I hereby now delegate all future correspondence on this matter to you.

I'm not quite so sure that aphilosophy is or ever will become a "belief system".

Now I must disagree, the conceptual part of aphilosophy is as much a belief system as any other ideology.

For one thing, doing so would destroy it; it would come into conflict with its fundamental notions.

Yes, the conceptual part of aphilosophy is in direct conflict with that which it refers to. Ideally this does indeed destroy the authority of aphilosophy ideology, so that the student lets it go and moves on to the aphilosophy experience. Or at the least, students don't get wound up in worshiping the conceptual part of aphilsoophy.

It's rather Zen in its approach to philosophy and the activities of mind.

The term "aphilosophy" is just a word I made up on this forum, which very generally refers to many related traditions. I don't see aphilosophy as being some unique area of study.

I have a friend, Theoretika the Unicorn, who serves as an advisor on matters of philosophy and religion. She has long ago told me that the animal community rather pities mankind because of its infection with codified language and thought.

My wife and I are wildlife rehabbers, and I know exactly what you mean. Thought is a wonderful tool, but the price we pay for it is heavy, it's a form of death.

It is a prison of the mind, she says.

Yes, but we don't even see the prison until we have something to compare it too.

Animals are here and now people, but humans live so much more in the past and future.

Exactly. And the now is real, and the past and future are not. A form of death.

I'm a right stout Taoist and distant patron of Buddhist philosophy, but I'm not ready for either atheism or aphilosophy.

What is Taoist? Please elaborate for us.

I do believe (note that term) that the gods we know are all man-made, but only because the divine is quite too inhumanly vast and transcendent for us to comprehend, or if we could comprehend, to feel any affection for.

My feelings as well, except I would not include the word "divine" in my statement. The word "divine" implies something outside of nature, and it also tends to run off lots of people unnecessarily. But, these are quibbles really.

We are like blind men describing the elephant. One man speaks for science, another for religion, and yet another for the poet and artist. We feel of it and identify it in our own various terminologies; then we argue over words. Theoretika is right, you know.

Excellent, excellent, excellent.

Please allow me to welcome you to the thread and the forum, I anticipate many enjoyable conversations ahead.

Who is Theoretika?