6am writing
I feel it's time to write again, and it has been QUITE some time since I've had the drive to do. Sure the possibility has been there, but usually in times of angst or worry where I needed to just get my thoughts out. I feel it's time for a change, for more of writing for the purpose of getting my thoughts organized rather than a release, or simple rant. Sure there may still be those, but without the same frequency as before. Before there was the times when writing was pure therapy; writing things down in a notepad during downtime at a shitty job where 90% of the time I was left alone to scramble my own thoughts down and work through things. In many ways, this is still needed, but I believe I have learned to simply live in the present instead of having my head in the clouds or the dirt (future or present), and though those thoughts are still there, I can without a doubt say I am not the person I was, 10, or even 5 years ago.
So my first thought is that I came to a conclusion on a long standing, um, standpoint on religion and me. I pretty much claim myself as an atheist, but before jumping to the immediate conclusion (that 99% of people do) of stating I disregard any notions of g(G)od and the like, I feel an explanation is in order. First off, let me stake my claim on western Abrahamic religion. My perspective is such that I feel the universe to which we can perceive and begin to understand (I'll get to this point in a bit) is so vast that I think it foolish to think we are somehow chosen or even special in the eyes of some divine being. Putting it simply, we are simply so far removed from that vantage point it is foolish to think us the ability to understand it. Modeled in his image, yea, OK! My perspective on god (not the little g) is a higher state of consciousness, which warrants even FURTHER explanation. The basis for any religion, is faith from which one invests the belief in said religion's validity on the standpoint from that which cannot be explained. What i mean is simply he puts all his chips into the pot of belief on said religion for whatever religion, be it guiding principles, physical feeling that cannot be rationally or even verbally explained, whatever. For them, it simply works. This is my perspective which moves towards eastern religions with mediation and energy and such, because I have experienced such event which I cannot explain, though at the same time I don't delve directly into the WHOLE of the religion. Still, following? Good, if not go back and reread.
So, in a nutshell, western religion I don't follow, or agree with in many ways, but that is not the entirety of why I am an atheist. I also, despite agreeing with many viewpoints and ethics of such, am not an eastern religious person either, although I agree most closely with Buddhisms. NOW, pay attention to this. Buddhists, are atheists. ?! I know right?! "But Buddha was a god!" No, he wasn't. Buddha is a title to those whom have reached enlightenment. They also recognized god(s), but have no interest in worship of them. They pay respect and the like, but do not worship or follow, for they are more concerned with the individual. This, is my perspective, hence, I am an atheist.
Now, onto my standpoint. I was discussing this with a friend I've recently started hanging out with from work. Albeit he was a bit inebriated at the time, but the point still stands because it was a discussion with himself, his girlfriend and myself about religion. A topic I am reluctant to freely talk about with people, especially those whom I know are deep into their religion, as was his girlfriend (Christian I believe). He brought the point up to her that I was an atheist. To which I quickly interjected my point by asking her if she was truly comfortable in her religion, which she was. What I meant by truly comfortable (and this was explained to her) is that I meant she had complete faith in the religion. This point is when my friend began his viewpoints on the metaphysical nature of said religion, which provided me the clarity I had been searching for. I jumped back in with the point that arguing the metaphysical nature of religion is fruitless, for it is something which we shall never completely know or understand, what really matters about religion is the guiding principles of life, meaning a doctrine for someone to live their life by that they agreed with and sought to follow, akin to a child following the principles set by their parents. If that is what they truly felt comfort with, I was happy for them that they found something, and could not disagree, for how could you argue with someone following something with which they believe is correct?
I agree with Heidegger that metaphysics lies at the groundwork for all other philosophical doctrines which follow, but this viewpoint has left me wondering about that thought, for this seems an instance where metaphysics plays second fiddle. From which, I have begun to wonder whether metaphysics itself is just another viewpoint of faith, in that we give so much faith to science and the like because it is that which we as humans can understand. I want to try and state that many things about science are grounded in being beyond human perspective, into the realm of universal, but I go back to Hume, in which this manner of metaphysics all we have experienced, and without differing perspective to counter, how can you not have faith? So does this make it correct, yes for perhaps it is what truly comprises our existence, but we have also never experienced, or perhaps are barred from experiencing a different set of universalities so how can we stake definitive claim to this?
Faith, I believe is tied to belief, or rather belief is at the heart of faith. The notion of belief is something I have been intrigued by for quite some time, and lately have been muling the idea of it and it's impact and implication for quite some time, but i know I need to talk with my professors some to see what other rational has brought light (if any) to the subject. Alas, for now I am concluding this entry.
So my first thought is that I came to a conclusion on a long standing, um, standpoint on religion and me. I pretty much claim myself as an atheist, but before jumping to the immediate conclusion (that 99% of people do) of stating I disregard any notions of g(G)od and the like, I feel an explanation is in order. First off, let me stake my claim on western Abrahamic religion. My perspective is such that I feel the universe to which we can perceive and begin to understand (I'll get to this point in a bit) is so vast that I think it foolish to think we are somehow chosen or even special in the eyes of some divine being. Putting it simply, we are simply so far removed from that vantage point it is foolish to think us the ability to understand it. Modeled in his image, yea, OK! My perspective on god (not the little g) is a higher state of consciousness, which warrants even FURTHER explanation. The basis for any religion, is faith from which one invests the belief in said religion's validity on the standpoint from that which cannot be explained. What i mean is simply he puts all his chips into the pot of belief on said religion for whatever religion, be it guiding principles, physical feeling that cannot be rationally or even verbally explained, whatever. For them, it simply works. This is my perspective which moves towards eastern religions with mediation and energy and such, because I have experienced such event which I cannot explain, though at the same time I don't delve directly into the WHOLE of the religion. Still, following? Good, if not go back and reread.
So, in a nutshell, western religion I don't follow, or agree with in many ways, but that is not the entirety of why I am an atheist. I also, despite agreeing with many viewpoints and ethics of such, am not an eastern religious person either, although I agree most closely with Buddhisms. NOW, pay attention to this. Buddhists, are atheists. ?! I know right?! "But Buddha was a god!" No, he wasn't. Buddha is a title to those whom have reached enlightenment. They also recognized god(s), but have no interest in worship of them. They pay respect and the like, but do not worship or follow, for they are more concerned with the individual. This, is my perspective, hence, I am an atheist.
Now, onto my standpoint. I was discussing this with a friend I've recently started hanging out with from work. Albeit he was a bit inebriated at the time, but the point still stands because it was a discussion with himself, his girlfriend and myself about religion. A topic I am reluctant to freely talk about with people, especially those whom I know are deep into their religion, as was his girlfriend (Christian I believe). He brought the point up to her that I was an atheist. To which I quickly interjected my point by asking her if she was truly comfortable in her religion, which she was. What I meant by truly comfortable (and this was explained to her) is that I meant she had complete faith in the religion. This point is when my friend began his viewpoints on the metaphysical nature of said religion, which provided me the clarity I had been searching for. I jumped back in with the point that arguing the metaphysical nature of religion is fruitless, for it is something which we shall never completely know or understand, what really matters about religion is the guiding principles of life, meaning a doctrine for someone to live their life by that they agreed with and sought to follow, akin to a child following the principles set by their parents. If that is what they truly felt comfort with, I was happy for them that they found something, and could not disagree, for how could you argue with someone following something with which they believe is correct?
I agree with Heidegger that metaphysics lies at the groundwork for all other philosophical doctrines which follow, but this viewpoint has left me wondering about that thought, for this seems an instance where metaphysics plays second fiddle. From which, I have begun to wonder whether metaphysics itself is just another viewpoint of faith, in that we give so much faith to science and the like because it is that which we as humans can understand. I want to try and state that many things about science are grounded in being beyond human perspective, into the realm of universal, but I go back to Hume, in which this manner of metaphysics all we have experienced, and without differing perspective to counter, how can you not have faith? So does this make it correct, yes for perhaps it is what truly comprises our existence, but we have also never experienced, or perhaps are barred from experiencing a different set of universalities so how can we stake definitive claim to this?
Faith, I believe is tied to belief, or rather belief is at the heart of faith. The notion of belief is something I have been intrigued by for quite some time, and lately have been muling the idea of it and it's impact and implication for quite some time, but i know I need to talk with my professors some to see what other rational has brought light (if any) to the subject. Alas, for now I am concluding this entry.