The Absolute TV: 3 Questions for Atheists

[Bondi]

Hello,

I thought I’d take up the “challenge” of answering those 3 questions you phrased in one of the latest videos of ‘Absolute TV’. I do not regard myself as an atheist, though. (If I have to say something in this context, I define myself as an autotheist. I’ll elaborate that later.) But I think your questions address a much wider audience, i.e. simply all those who can still think and value thinking. So, first of all, thank you.

I appreciate the idea of short questions & replies, so I’ll stick to that.

Hopefully, all the future contributors of this topic will be up to the challenge and answer your questions, before they start to dismantle the whole conversation.

Q1. Do you hold that certainty regarding some aspects of existence or reality is possible? If so, what examples can you provide? If not, why?

A1. Yes and/or no. Reality ‘is’ (cannot be other than) an ‘aspect’ of the Self. I can reach certainty but I can never provide evidence. One who is certain does not need examples or evidences.

Q2. What, if anything, is the Self?

A2. Self is a rather ambiguous and imprecise term in English. Strictly, it is Ātmā (in Sanskrit) or Selbst (German) or Auton (Greek) or Ipsum (Latin) – if I’m here to give more words. It is the Beginning or ‘the beginning with no beginning’ or ‘the beginning before the beginning’ or ‘the beginning with no beginning or end’ etc. Ultimately, it is (the) Infinite. Ultimately. The Self has countless stages, it is not ‘provided’. Self is no ego (‘I’ or ‘me’), no human being, no God, not a ‘thing’ etc.

In this sense, I say that I am an autotheist or autonotheist. God, reality, existence, being etc. could have no certainty if I considered them things that were independent or they were merely in line with the Self. They would not even deserve the name “illusion” like that.

Q3. Do you sceptically question all of your feelings in the way you expect of theists? For example, do you question the nature of your experience of the feeling of Love? Or do you accept its legitimacy purely on the basis of how it makes you feel?

A3. I think I already answered these. I do not only question my feelings (or emotions), but first and foremost I also question my thoughts.

I do not say I am a sceptic (or question sceptically), though. Scepticism turns out to be a double-edge sword when it comes to truth. What I do is: if I find that people say something is true, I propose a question (to myself) that it could be false – and vice versa. Yes, in a nut-shell, this is the same as the teaching of the Gospels: “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” (Mt, 5:37)*

Well, thank you again, and I’ll keep an eye on the forthcoming shows of our dedicated wisdom channel.


* Let me add a foot-note here (nothing against you, just to make it clear): most atheists are mere anti-theists. They fear nothing more than the concept of God, so they build up a world of illusion and put illustrious names on it (agnosticism etc.). The worst one is materialist atheism, which tries to eradicate Truth. The monstrous terror of communism is the most shameful example for that.

[|read|]

"Q3. Do you skeptically question all of your feelings in the way you expect of theists? For example, do you question the nature of your experience of the feeling of love? Or do you accept its legitimacy purely on the basis of how it makes you feel?"

I accept that I have feelings, and they're legitimate in the sense that I have them so I have to deal with them in some way. A feeling may be illegitimate in a different sense, if for example, I feel angry toward someone, but upon reflection I realize I have no good reason to be angry toward them, and my anger is in fact caused by something else entirely. In a similar way, I question the origins and the ways in which I deal with all my feelings, including love.

A feeling is evidence for one thing and one thing only - it's evidence that you had that feeling. The reasons you had it are not so readily apparent. When I feel love, for example, I know that I felt love. I have evidence of that feeling. Then I wonder why I felt that way. When a theist feels that god exists, he knows that he felt that god exists. He has evidence of that feeling. His mistake is assuming he has evidence that god itself exists, rather than just the feeling. He assumes he felt that god exists because god actually does exist, instead of feeling that god exists because he's been conditioned to or because he needs a psychological crutch.

Love, like anger, is itself a feeling. The only evidence one needs for the existence of that feeling is to feel it. However, god is not a feeling (at least not the popular gods.) God is supposed to be an actual being that thinks and has/had some effect upon the world. The feeling that god exists is not evidence for the being. The feeling that the jacket in my closet exists is not evidence for the jacket - if I want evidence, I have to see the jacket.

[|read|]

"Q2. What, if anything, is the self?"

Tough one. I think the self is an introspective program, in that I know that I myself process information and introspect. This is not a very specific description, and I strongly suspect there is more to be said about the self than I currently understand.

I speculate that the self introspects in loops, that is, there is a feedback mechanism where different levels of abstraction interact in strange ways. Perhaps the self is based on self-reference.

I've heard the idea in philosophy that the self does not exist. I don't know what this means. Clearly, something exists, right? Something is typing, something is thinking the words being typed (whatever the process of thinking may entail.) I would guess that "the self does not exist" actually means there are certain common beliefs about the self that are in error, that is, many people have some kind of false conception or illusion of what the self is. What are these erroneous beliefs?

[|read|]

"Q1. Do you hold that certainty regarding some aspects of existence or reality is possible? If so, what examples can you provide? If not, why?"

Yes - the first and second "camps" I describe at the end of my thread "programmer philosophy" allow absolute certainty, whereas the third camp only allows a relative degree of certainty. This is a subtle question, which I just yesterday attempted to explain at length.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4310

[Dan Rowden]

Let me add a foot-note here (nothing against you, just to make it clear): most atheists are mere anti-theists. They fear nothing more than the concept of God, so they build up a world of illusion and put illustrious names on it (agnosticism etc.). The worst one is materialist atheism, which tries to eradicate Truth. The monstrous terror of communism is the most shameful example for that.

Not sure about that last sentence, Bondi, but let me just state that whilst my questions in that vid were serious, the vid has two essential intentions - 1) to attract attention to the channel; 2) to try and expose the very failing you mention - that many, if not most, atheist types compartmentalise their "rationality" to a high degree. The responses to my 3rd question have thus far been interesting in that most don't seem to have gotten the gist of it. Mind you, that could be the way I asked it, but I'm inclined to suspect not.

[|read|]

What did you mean by your third question? Can you elaborate?

[Leyla Shen]

Not sure about that last sentence, Bondi

Talk about a throbbing Achilles heel. :)

[Edit: for the sake of clarity, I meant Bondi's Achilles heel. [takes aim] sort of hung out there like dog's balls...]

[Dan Rowden]

What did you mean by your third question? Can you elaborate?

Hey |read|. No need. I didn't mean here (your reply was fine); I meant at Youtube itself.

[Bondi]

Let me add a foot-note here (nothing against you, just to make it clear): most atheists are mere anti-theists. They fear nothing more than the concept of God, so they build up a world of illusion and put illustrious names on it (agnosticism etc.). The worst one is materialist atheism, which tries to eradicate Truth. The monstrous terror of communism is the most shameful example for that.

Not sure about that last sentence, Bondi, but let me just state that whilst my questions in that vid were serious, the vid has two essential intentions - 1) to attract attention to the channel; 2) to try and expose the very failing you mention - that many, if not most, atheist types compartmentalise their "rationality" to a high degree. The responses to my 3rd question have thus far been interesting in that most don't seem to have gotten the gist of it. Mind you, that could be the way I asked it, but I'm inclined to suspect not.

Well, just wanted to give an example. Might not be the best one, though, as it implies politics.

But the main thing I want to point out is that “atheism” might not be the best term. I’m not very fond of setting up a neologism either (it’s a practice that usually attracts a different type of audience...), but meta-theism would be a far more better term for a “spiritual atheism”. The mental disability or incapacity of most atheists simply cannot offer space for any spiritual use of the term.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, just wanted to give an example. Might not be the best one, though, as it implies politics.

Obviously, though, you had something in mind. Even you seem to think there's a relationship between God/religion and politics.

You don't think we could examine that something if you fleshed it out a little?

[Ryan Sepulvado]

"Do you skeptically question all of your feelings in the way you expect of theists?"

It's amusing that this question attempts to imply that we must be dumb. Do I expect theists to skeptically question their feelings? hahaha. No! I use theists for which they are useful, and ignore all else. How useless it would be to question their feelings! I understand them already, and they're absolutely insignificant.

This question is bogus.
Bogus is a horrible word. How can I denote bo gus? gah!

[brad walker]

Ryan S., do you go by BigAtheist on Youtube?

[Bondi]

Well, just wanted to give an example. Might not be the best one, though, as it implies politics.

Obviously, though, you had something in mind. Even you seem to think there's a relationship between God/religion and politics.

You don't think we could examine that something if you fleshed it out a little?

Of course, there is (and always has been) a relationship between religion and politics. What is so surprising in that? The spiritual authority always possessed a worldly power. Christianity (Catholicism) is an obvious example. Islam is still standing. In the Far-East, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism etc. all had their influence in the everyday world. Not to mention the traditional Japan.

But back to my note: I’m from Central Europe (the former “Eastern Bloc”, if you like) and it is shocking to see how effective communism was in eradicating spiritual thought. Yes, if we look at it, communism has nothing to do with religion. The communist outlook should deal only with economy and politics. Yet they have always started with the massacre or banishment of aristocracy, then later in the process they oppressed the institutions that bore the heritage of a spiritual thought (plainly: churches, religions and such). The reason is simple: if people turn their eyes on something higher (higher than the everyday life), the brain-wash cannot be effective.

You can’t find a better example than today’s China: not just the case of Tibet, but that there are lots of even smaller minorities in China under a slow extermination. Mostly on the peripheries of China. China does what the Soviet Union did before: the Soviet Union migrated Russians to the perimeters of the SU, and deported the natives. For instance, these days the Baltic countries have a massive Russian minority. China is ‘suppressing’ its minorities (their language, their spiritual heritage etc.) with various ‘politically correct’ manoeuvres.

To cut it short, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, it took only a couple of years for the pseudo-spiritual stream to take over (i.e. the “New Age” and the stuff). With no spiritual background, people either fell as an easy prey, or they simply couldn’t be touched any more by anything spiritual.

[Dan Rowden]

Ryan S., do you go by BigAtheist on Youtube?

It wouldn't surprise me, because he didn't get the spirit or intention of the question either. Atheists can be an oddly sensitive bunch.

[Leyla Shen]

What is so surprising [about the fact that there has always been a relationship between religion and politics]?

To me? Absolutely nothing.

But back to my note: I’m from Central Europe (the former “Eastern Bloc”, if you like)…

Oh, really--which lifetime was that? (I thought you were from Wales, or something like that.)

…and it is shocking to see how effective communism was in eradicating spiritual thought. Yes, if we look at it, communism has nothing to do with religion. The communist outlook should deal only with economy and politics. Yet they have always started with the massacre or banishment of aristocracy, …

Wait a minute, am I understanding you correctly? Time to get the definitions right. If we agree (and I think we did, just above) that there has always been a relationship between politics and religion (and, further, that the aristocracy is economically defined as the privileged class holding hereditary title) why are you assuming dealing with aristocracy isn’t also a matter of economics?

(Further comment to your post pending reply to question above.)

[Ryan Sepulvado]

Ryan S., do you go by BigAtheist on Youtube?

I do not use YouTube.

[Ryan Sepulvado]

Ryan S., do you go by BigAtheist on Youtube?

It wouldn't surprise me, because he didn't get the spirit or intention of the question either. Atheists can be an oddly sensitive bunch.

What is the spirit of a question?

Of course, if you answer this question correctly anything you say will be a lie.

Proceed...

Why should I care what the intention of any question is? Only the person asking should be concerned with that. I do not answer questions to satisfy the person asking.

Furthermore, I believe you would indeed be surprised if I did have a YouTube account, and I used the name BigAtheist. That name is probably being used already.

Do you understand why you're afraid of me, Dan?

[Dan Rowden]

Because your girlfriend is a sumo wrestler?

[Jamesh]

Bondi wrote:

Of course, there is (and always has been) a relationship between religion and politics. What is so surprising in that? The spiritual authority always possessed a worldly power. Christianity (Catholicism) is an obvious example. Islam is still standing. In the Far-East, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism etc. all had their influence in the everyday world. Not to mention the traditional Japan.

I’d much rather a relationship between truth and politics.

That is mainly because most people are habitual sheep. Egotistical folk use it to create power for themselves in the form of religious tradition. What “worldly” power they do have comes from adopting those little social truth-memes that suit their purposes, and the use of customs and music to activate the emotions.

Speaking of music, I was watching this little angel on TV the other night, she was 17 at the time the show was made – one of the most beautiful bits of Christian entertainment I’ve seen (it would make Dan sick!, and classical voices have never been a fav of mine either) – but while the voice and music were activating the godly-awe type feelings, I know this to be just what it is – a totally human experience, not a godly one. The trouble is religious power-mongers use this emotionalising for their own purposes.

http://www.hayleywestenra.com/

[Dan Rowden]

Give me a break. Pedestrian at best. And pointless.

[Leyla Shen]

Oops, sorry, bondi. I just realised that I confused your white patch in my peripheral vision with Kevin's light... :)

[Bondi]

Yeah, Kevin hasn’t even posted to this topic.

For me, aristocracy is not “economically defined as the privileged class holding hereditary title”. I first and foremost define aristocracy in the original (spiritual or philosophical or platonic) sense of the word, i.e. the rule of the best. If you like, I re-phrase it: communism massacred and banished the spiritual élite.

But this is quite off-topic now.

[Leyla Shen]

I reserve the right to continue this particular footnoted tangent if there is no reply concomitant with the opening post of this thread within the next couple of weeks.

[Jamesh]

Give me a break. Pedestrian at best. And pointless.

All things are pointless Dan, even enlightenment. So what is wrong with me enjoying a bit of human silliness, I wonder?

Pedestrian, well maybe, her singing was all training and no self-reflection - but who cares, the show was still novel to me. I enjoyed it and that is all that ever matters.