Atheism Would An Atheist Pray In A Life And Death Situation?

[Sinister]

Interesting concept! So pray, (English phrase for those who don't understand) tell me then how do the uncertain react in uncertain circumstances where uncertainty about life or death is all they can see (albeit uncertainly)????

You asked a very convoluted question, that I have been studying for a long time.

What I think you have also asked me to do is to give perspective on the human condition, a subject of great difficulty. (but relates to this thread)

The simplest answer is that uncertainty does not fail to yield an answer but yields an answer without any degree of certainty (which emotionally is not always lacking strong conviction). Hence; how would I know how an individual will react given the circumstance of their condition. (this may appear as a model for chaos...but it should not be dismissed as such, because such a deduction would be entirely wrong). There exists a huge difference in the metaphysical claim that you believe in nothing, and the epistemological claim that you know nothing (the former is nihilism the latter
is skepticism).

"Reaction" (the word you used) is the result of a causation whereas action may be independent (Note: empiricist/behaviourists schools of thought will challenge this tooth and nail). This is when Instinctualist thought is necessary because if you are always uncertain about the existence of a causation how and why does a person react to stimuli (if you can still call it such)?...the prime mover into uncertaity is thus instinct...the next question being; what guides instinct? (relying on linguistic expressions, such as; intuition, or volition are not enough)

let us make a supposition that choice in belief is governed by instinct

In philosophy a particular effort was made in early to mid 1900's to validate this school of thought, or give it legs to stand on. Which gave us the 3 Viennese schools of psychodynamics. Freud's "will to pleasure" or Frankl's "will to meaning" (logotherapy) or Nietszche/Adler's "will to power".

a couple of words stand out when thinking about instinctualism. the first and simplest word/expression being; taste (or an innate knowing of preference)

from which belief and perspectivism is born. a break down of this knowing leads to relativism, subjectivism and nihilism.

perpectivism stands out and is most engaging (in the modern sense) in that you assemble various vantage points in the construction of an epistemological or metaphysical truth. Which is possible because each perspective is not given equal validity (avoiding nihilism) each perspective however is subsumed giving rise to a holistic construction of belief in truth that is always subject to flux according to a timescale. (Aside: The fact that this emerged after the development of calculus is a fact I find intriguing and should be an area of strong investigation).

I think modern instinctual psychology/psychiatry went along this road. All the while more emphasis and study has been directed towards sub-conscious choice triggers...the theory being that the will to chose itself is made in the sub-conscious mind before realization of decision... which, auto-pilots the individual (or collective, in sociology) towards long term emotional satisfaction (a consciously desirable outcome). (thus combining all 3 Vienese schools with one word: desirable= "will to power" + "will to meaning"+"will to pleasure")

Volitient; exercising will.

William James another thinker in pscychological philosophy that I admire had strong rejections of Kant's theories on the Transcendental ego. His description was that a human is a stream of thoughts whose belief in truth development is dependant only on correspondence. Where the present thought is an agent but exists only as a transient moment in a Heraclitean stream. Again an expression of uncertainty in truths, that was later termed epistemological realism.

Does that make my original expression of skepticism, instinctualism and agnosticism valid forms of existence? yes but are they preferable forms of existence that is a matter of taste

 

[helgasdogs]

If someone who claims to be an atheist is put in a life and death situation, would they not pray for their life to be saved, when all other options that they can control have been exhausted? If prayer comes so naturally to us, if emotion precedes thought, and prayer is rooted in emotion, then how can life grow denying this? How can a person deny themselves the belief in themselves and see themselves isolated from the universe? If atheism is considered a lack of faith, I am not convinced, it seems to be a delay in belief.

Members who consider themselves atheists, could you share your views?

Dear Navdeep88,

My father was an Invincible Atheist. He told me once, that, on the operating table for a serious medical condition, awaiting surgery that could have killed him, he thought about praying. But, he couldn't decide whom to pray to: Buddha, Zoroaster, Zeus, Brahman, ..., whatever. So, he told a joke to the operating team instead, saying to them, 'If you screw up, I'll never speak to you again.' The grace of such humour under fire noticeably relaxed the tense team, reducing a factor that might have killed him. My father was an honest man, so, I can tell you, in my own honesty, that he would not pray, no matter what. He would not violate his own integrity by praying to something inconceivable to him.

Yours,

'h'

 

[Caspian]

My father was an Invincible Atheist. He told me once, that, on the operating table for a serious medical condition, awaiting surgery that could have killed him, he thought about praying. But, he couldn't decide whom to pray to: Buddha, Zoroaster, Zeus, Brahman, ..., whatever. So, he told a joke to the operating team instead, saying to them, 'If you screw up, I'll never speak to you again.' The grace of such humour under fire noticeably relaxed the tense team, reducing a factor that might have killed him. My father was an honest man, so, I can tell you, in my own honesty, that he would not pray, no matter what. He would not violate his own integrity by praying to something inconceivable to him.

Wow, your father seems like a cool guy . What you said reminded me of another exchange between two brothers.

One brother was a staunch atheist and the other a evangelical christian. Christohpher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens respectively. As some of you may no, christopher hitchens has been diagnosed with cancer and the doctors say he would be extremely lucky to live another 5 years. So at a recent event, with both the brothers in attendance, a memeber of the audience asked whether or not christopher hitchen would have a "death bed conversion." Of course christopher said he would do no such thing but his religious brother came to his defence saying that there would have to be something morbidly wrong or heinous about religion if the only way one could truly appreciate it is if they were at deaths door.

 

[findingmyway]

Wow, your father seems like a cool guy . What you said reminded me of another exchange between two brothers.

One brother was a staunch atheist and the other a evangelical christian. Christohpher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens respectively. As some of you may no, christopher hitchens has been diagnosed with cancer and the doctors say he would be extremely lucky to live another 5 years. So at a recent event, with both the brothers in attendance, a memeber of the audience asked whether or not christopher hitchen would have a "death bed conversion." Of course christopher said he would do no such thing but his religious brother came to his defence saying that there would have to be something morbidly wrong or heinous about religion if the only way one could truly appreciate it is if they were at deaths door.

Your story proves that religion is not heinous as so many people convert without being on their deathbed. This forum is proof enough of that!! :carefreekaur:

 

[Navdeep88]

what is odd...the prime dividing force (the prime causation) between the divide of the divine and the profane is also its greatest unifier.

uncertainty

both states are products of uncertainty (a desire to rid oneself of this suspended state)

where not knowing is the real problem rather than being wrong.

the rest of the differences are just cosmetic and the result of identity creation.

when they are really driven by the same thing...

uncertainty

That may be your view Sinister Ji, but I dont agree because my belief is based on the certainty that I am, like all beings, completely and eternally loved. I was always loved, even if I did not feel it towards myself or acknowledge it. I am loved in the present, completely....even if there are problems and flaws that may take my attention, the fact remains, I am loved. And regardless of the circumstances that may come, I will always be loved, and of that I am more certain than anything else.

 

[Caspian]

Your story proves that religion is not heinous as so many people convert without being on their deathbed. This forum is proof enough of that!!

Yes, but it also proves how stupid a death bed conversion is I mean, who are you trying to fool in that case? God?

 

[Sinister]

That may be your view Sinister Ji, but I dont agree because my belief is based on the certainty that I am, like all beings, completely and eternally loved. I was always loved, even if I did not feel it towards myself or acknowledge it. I am loved in the present, completely....even if there are problems and flaws that may take my attention, the fact remains, I am loved. And regardless of the circumstances that may come, I will always be loved, and of that I am more certain than anything else.

Believe in anything you want, and describe it with whatever language you wish and do it with an honest vigor for any emotion related to any experience you wish to express (that is life). That is not my quarrel and never will be. But to act as if your belief is akin to some cosmic wisdom that should be justified in the minds of all, is something always worthy of a shakedown and that is my belief.

to end in Socratic insight:
The hour of departure has arrived and we go our ways; I to die, and you to live. Which is better? Only God knows.

Later alligator

 

[findingmyway]

Believe in anything you want, and describe it with whatever language you wish and do it with an honest vigor for any emotion related to any experience you wish to express (that is life). That is not my quarrel and never will be. But to act as if your belief is akin to some cosmic wisdom that should be justified in the minds of all, is something always worthy of a shakedown and that is my belief.

I don't think Navdeep ji ever said her belief is the cosmic wisdom, she presented it as a personal point of view. She was merely providing another angle to your uncertainty idea. Guess you'll have to go back to the drawing board with that one as some people are certain contrary to your belief......

 

[Navdeep88]

Sinister Ji,

Your pursuit is knowledge, your voice is of intelligence and many people appreciate that, including myself because I think your intent is to offer what you know to be helpful and insightful. And it is appreciated. Your welcome to give a shakedown to whatever you like. But can you imagine if your voice was the only one offered because you believe it is "correct"...

"to end in Socratic insight:
The hour of departure has arrived and we go our ways; I to die, and you to live. Which is better? Only God knows." Really, how does this help anybody? This is a religious website, there's gurbani on it, maybe people come on here for more than just a battle of intellect. Say someone is dealing with an addiction, depression, loss and the above is what you would offer? then that makes all the more sense for people of different views to pitch in because i think your view of the audience is quite narrow.

The point from which I speak is valid. Im not trying to force anything on anybody... if I was, I wouldn't be writing things like "could you share your views"... its interesting, but that doesnt mean I will buckle easily.

 

[Sinister]

Hello Navdeep Ji,

Sinister Ji,

Your pursuit is knowledge, your voice is of intelligence and many people appreciate that, including myself because I think your intent is to offer what you know to be helpful and insightful.

And it is appreciated. Your welcome to give a shakedown to whatever you like. But can you imagine if your voice was the only one offered because you believe it is "correct"... .

How can I be "intelligent" when my only claim to knowledge is that I know nothing but believe in something?

How can my intention be to be "correct" whenever I speak?

It is unfortunate that you think I speak from some hyper-rational robotic perspective, because each of my thoughts are deeply rooted behind an emotion.


This thread wasn't about YOU or ME, its about atheists and prayer. The subject so vulnerable to inflammation, and so varied and difficult, that every extraction of meaning requires a great deal of thought, great acuity and patience.

I AM NOT HERE TO DEBATE YOU about MY beliefs (debate or one-upmanship is fruitless). Even though debate on the surface appears that you have intention of accepting understanding it rarely does.

You did feel obligated to share your own beliefs, on which, I will continue to refuse to pass sentiment to save what is left of your stated endeavor, 'learning'.

The only true student is the person who is genuinely observing, whose attention is affixed to that of the object, subject, teacher or guru. A studious observer is a person who has abandoned or suspended the barrier (his own beliefs or preconditions), albeit even temporarily. Focused in genuine observation and understanding of 'what is' NOT 'what ought'.

I think, you are caught up in the words...in the definitions...in the labels...in the defenses...trying to get an OUGHT from an IS... not caring for the understanding of the expressions but more so in the flow of them and how they relate to yourself and your own beliefs.

this is evident from post #17 where you ask me to give my view on the pettiness of human labels... to post# 25 where you started to define yourself into a label, separating yourself from me.

The point from which I speak is valid. Im not trying to force anything on anybody... if I was, I wouldn't be writing things like "could you share your views"... its interesting, but that doesnt mean I will buckle easily.

the notion that "your buckling" is somehow my reward is nothing more than a sentiment of projection of your own sub-conscious motives. Or. it stems from desires of validation, or it is just a poor exercise of the method to develop understanding, which you yourself claimed to be the tentative goal.

I don't want you to buckle...how powerful do you think I am? that I may have the capacity to kill what you believe? I do want you to understand my position in its entirety and not go out on tangents beyond the immediate agency under scrutiny.

We cannot live and die like animals, slaves to primal emotions/urges that are put on a pedestal. An emotion not welded and collected with thought is just reactionary not revolutionary. And an emotion that is not challenged or accepted is an emotion that is not welded in thought.

I am stressing Impartiality which is key to you at this point even if it is undesirable to yourself in generating a stimulating "converse-ation" (debate). Therefore, if you make statements or wish to share something, I must state, that you are no longer only here to learn, but here to reach some surface interaction with the observed (in this case the atheist). this will cause an undesirable tangent...why not dedicate yourself entirely? you clearly have the intellect. you can challenge others but can you challenge yourself to impartiality?

read post # 21...because I answered your original question ("would an atheist pray on his deathbed?") to what I believe is an honest relay of sentiment.

if a person prays on his deathbed it is the result of the desirable (taste), spawning from the "will to power" + "will to meaning" + "will to pleasure".

thus their is no difference between the atheist and believer, emotionally or rationally they function the same. metaphysical beliefs (atheist or religious) are merely cosmetic and subservient to the will (gods or ours).

this is my view. take it, turn it up side down, flip it, spin it or leave it.

"to end in Socratic insight:
The hour of departure has arrived and we go our ways; I to die, and you to live. Which is better? Only God knows." Really, how does this help anybody? This is a religious website, there's gurbani on it, maybe people come on here for more than just a battle of intellect. Say someone is dealing with an addiction, depression, loss and the above is what you would offer? then that makes all the more sense for people of different views to pitch in because i think your view of the audience is quite narrow.

That is all you got from that Socratic quote? The deeper more interesting question is why did you take a default nihilistic understanding to it?

I think you need to use all your mental acuity and think on it. for example, even at the end of great sorrow the underlying emotion is great passion and love. The cup is either half empty or half full.

The quote, I provided, is a rallying cry for every positivists and humanist I know. A call to arms!
To become an observer, to understand by becoming the skeptic you form the basis for working together with your fellow man on a level ground for purposes much greater than just yourself; to generate understanding with one another, on another for one another. It is a call to become the enlightened or spiritual student that we are destined to become. But always remember, to be a student is to first be impartial, open and willing to work hard to challenge, not others, but your own beliefs. This experience will change the life of all who live by it and the emotions felt from this eureka discovery are truly rewarding, overwhelming, life breathing and boundless.

thats what I get from that very same quote.

 

[Astroboy]

An atheist might cry in a ritualistic way. View to understand one way how.
YouTube - KlingonDeathCry.mp4

 

[Navdeep88]

Sinister Ji,

You choose to take the last post personally. Understand that at no point did I ask you to agree with me. I didnt seperate you, I acknowledged your contribution and stated that mine was necessary as well. Perhaps this lengthy defense points to your own need for validation.

I think you need to use all your mental acuity and think on it. for example, even at the end of great sorrow the underlying emotion is great passion and love. The cup is either half empty or half full. I think the cup is always more than half full. At any point in time, there is more to be thankful for, than to complain, worry etc. about...and I really do think that applies to all human beings...athiests, agnostics and all.

The quote, I provided, is a rallying cry for every positivists and humanist I know. A call to arms!
To become an observer, to understand by becoming the skeptic you form the basis for working together with your fellow man on a level ground for purposes much greater than just yourself; to generate understanding with one another, on another for one another. It is a call to become the enlightened or spiritual student that we are destined to become ah... sounds a lot like my statement about "delay in belief"... But always remember, to be a student is to first be impartial, open and willing to work hard to challenge, not others, but your own beliefs. I was challenging myself and others because I don't think its possible for someone to be an athiest. I think the notion is born from ingratitude or a life experience which challenged a person to grow, and they chose not to. And I have yet to be convinced that anyone claiming to be an athiest really is, because I think everyone is capable of feeling gratitude and love (one can CHOOSE not to, they can deny themselves that chance out of fear or whatever but I think that ultimately leads to a lot of suffering...and Im convinced that all people ultimately want to be happy), and those are qualities in which you acknowledge God because there is no direct explanation for how we are sustained. This experience will change the life of all who live by it and the emotions felt from this eureka discovery are truly rewarding, overwhelming, life breathing and boundless.

thats what I get from that very same quote. [/quote]

 

[Caspian]

An atheist might cry in a ritualistic way. View to understand one way how.

LOL! I feel like atheists must be the most misunderstood minority group on the planet. I would loveeeeeee to see atheists ritually cry like how you have suggested—but I know you must be joking .

But the situation you highlight is better suited for the questions "What would an atheist do if a loved one of his was facing inevitable death—would he pray."

Having also jus attended a funeral of a dear family friend. I can say I didnt pray—I did feel sad/bad/etc. But thats only human. No ritualistic cries unfortunately.

 

[Caspian]

I was challenging myself and others because I don't think its possible for someone to be an athiest. I think the notion is born from ingratitude or a life experience which challenged a person to grow, and they chose not to. And I have yet to be convinced that anyone claiming to be an athiest really is, because I think everyone is capable of feeling gratitude and love (one can CHOOSE not to, they can deny themselves that chance out of fear or whatever but I think that ultimately leads to a lot of suffering...and Im convinced that all people ultimately want to be happy), and those are qualities in which you acknowledge God because there is no direct explanation for how we are sustained.

Well, therein lies your problem. Your assumptions are all wrong. My atheism was a direct result of a series of logical assertions. Not ingratitude or any life experiences. Atheism just made sense to me, I would hope that most religious people are religious because religion makes sense to them. Not because of gratitude or some live experiences they had.

I find it pretty offensive that you think "true" atheists are incapable of feeling gratitude or love and any person in the world who is capable of feeling gratitude or love has to be or become religious (never mind the many "religious" tyrants who were unable to feel either gratitude or love for the most part).

PS, what do u mean by "sustain" when you say "and those are qualities in which you acknowledge God because there is no direct explanation for how we are sustained."

Sustains in the physical sense, Im sure you know there are many explanations for how we sustain our physical being. Atheists dont believe in a spiritual being (such as a soul, but we do believe in spirituality) so if your arguing that their is no other explanation for why our spiritual being is sustained other then "God." Then any atheist would be quick to point out the circular logic your using to refute any atheist arguments.

You say 1: There can be no such thing as atheists because everyone is capable of feeling gratitude and love which are the neccessary conditions for a belief in god. (I say not, because even in the religious sense, Buddhists are an "atheistic religion" they dont have a god. Do you reject the notion that people can be buddhists as well based on similar assumptions?) Even then, if atheists, themselves, reject the notion of god—ur unwilling to take their word for it? Seems very stubburn. I assure you were not lieing to ourselves, and as far as ur original question goes, there have been 3-4 examples in this thread (including my own) suggesting that atheists do not pray during life/death situations. I dont no why ur stubburnly believing we turn to god in moments of despair.

You say 2: God is neccesary for our sustainance. If your meaning in a spiritual sense, again im jus gonna let u have this point. Atheists dont believe in sustaining a spiritual soul like entity. We view spirituality as distinct and seperate from the notion of god. Your going to have to take my word for it but IM guessing ur going to assume im lieing to myself and I'm jus a closeted religious person.

As a final note. I would contend that all religious people are atheistic with respect to every religion but their own. The atheist only extends this general response from all other religions to the religion he was born into as well, if he was born into a religion at all.

Deal with it. They're are atheists out their, and we dont generally have death bed conversions. Cheers winkingmunda

 

[Navdeep88]

"I would hope that most religious people are religious because religion makes sense to them. Not because of gratitude or some live experiences they had." This is quite an assumption your making... what makes you think gratitude or life experiences etc. are in a different compartment from what you believe, its a combination of what makes "sense" and all the experiences, emotions that led you to it.

Buddhists are an "atheistic religion" they dont have a god.Hmmm....are you a buddhist? You need to stop making assumptions about what God is to people. God is an experience, not an entity.

Even then, if atheists, themselves, reject the notion of god—ur unwilling to take their word for it? Seems very stubburn. Please dont make the assumption that I care that much. This was a brief question (more of a plea) which was prompted several months ago, probably by having to deal with someone claiming to be an "athiest"

I have no need to "Deal with it"...I have a life to live, go live yours. If you look at my original post it says "claims to be an athiest". From the moment I heard it, I always found the idea of athiesm, well, humorous and I've yet to be convinced that such a state even exists.

And I dont think you're a closeted "religious" person, that would degrade the idea of what it means to be a believer. Your idea of religion and belief is very superficial, which makes me think you only have the armor of athiesm because your unable to deal with, unwilling to open your eyes to, unwilling to explore what belief actually is to an individual. You come on here, make snippy comments and I think the root of all that is insecurity, a fear... because what your addressing is your parents religion and how it didnt work for you. You need to go have that conversation with them, if you have not already. And then, as an adult, explore yourself emotionally. good luck

 

[Navdeep88]

A closeted agnostic, yes.

 

[Caspian]

A summary of our two points of view

Me: I am an atheist BUT I can accept the fact that your religious and you believe in a high power (a notion I find utterly ludicrous)—because people tend to do ludicrous things

You: I am religious, and everyone else must be or become religious because the only other option (atheism) is ludicrous—and god forbid anyone do anything ludicris

 

[Navdeep88]

A summary of our two points of view

Me: I am an atheist BUT I can accept the fact that your religious and you believe in a high power (a notion I find utterly ludicrous)—because people tend to do ludicrous things

You: I am religious, and everyone else must be or become religious because the only other option (atheism) is ludicrous—and god forbid anyone do anything ludicris

I think you should refrain from using the word "religious" because the way you use it is to compartmentalize people into a herd of drones. You approach it as if its something impersonal. And it isnt so, everyone has a different path...I accept that different people are at different stages but I believe that path has the same destination for all human beings.

 

[spnadmin]

I request that the amount of text speak spellings be reduced. It is getting increasingly difficult to understand what either of you are saying. And as an example, I cannot tell if the spelling "ludicris" of the word "ludicrous" is intentional or not.


Usually I can tell if there is a legitimate language barrier or difference contributing to spelling/grammar errors. And therefore would not utter a peep about this, not to offend or embarrass. However, both of you are educated in English speaking countries, and so I am going to guess these spellings are intentional. Please keep the strange orthographies to a limit, or SPN will start looking like TOPIX.

 

[Caspian]

The spelling error was unintentional. I spelt it right twice, the third time was just a brain ****.

Edit: lol f*rt is censored?