Personal growth - overcoming need

An Fear Aniar · 06-03-2008 12:47pm #1

If you're an atheist, is there any point in in working on your personality?

The buddhist way of overcoming desires - we're imprisoned by our desires and will only be happy by being free from wanting things.

What would be the point of that?

Is it better to be selfish or selfless?

These I think are important areas for any real atheist to resolve.

So really, the question for atheists is: what's your motivation?

.

Dades · 06-03-2008 12:55pm

That question would be more pertinent if people's motivations or characters were actually shaped by religious belief.

And because that isn't the case for the vast majority of people I've ever met, then I'd have to say an atheist's motivation in life is usually the exact same as any other meatsack human.

pH · 06-03-2008 1:18pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

If you're an atheist, is there any point in in working on your personality?

I'm not sure what atheism has to do with this, is there any point for anyone working on their personality?

The buddhist way of overcoming desires - we're imprisoned by our desires and will only be happy by being free from wanting things.

I'm afraid we're programmed by evolution to be unhappy with our lot in life and to always feel unhappy and be convinced that doing/achieving/possessing X will make us happy.

What would be the point of that?

No idea.

Is it better to be selfish or selfless?

The best strategy seems to be to actually be selfish but convince others you are selfless. The number of humans who do truly selfless things is absolutely tiny. Being conspicuously selfish earns you hatred from your neighbours and family - treading a path between these extremes is the basis for most our our evolved social behaviours.

These I think are important areas for any real atheist to resolve.

For you maybe, but isn't it really arrogant to tell others what they need to resolve?

So really, the question for atheists is: what's your motivation?

Why not the basic motivations that all humans seem to strive for: freedom from pain, children, food, shelter etc.?

aidan24326 · 06-03-2008 1:46pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

If you're an atheist, is there any point in in working on your personality?

Dunno really. Maybe you could enlighten us. As a non-denominational theist is there any point in you working on yours?

These I think are important areas for any real atheist to resolve.

I mustn't be a real atheist so as I'm not too bothered about any of those 'areas' to be honest. With the possible exception of philosophical considerations relating to the buddhist ideal.

So really, the question for atheists is: what's your motivation?

The motivation to survive and be happy in this life.

18AD · 06-03-2008 2:25pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

If you're an atheist, is there any point in in working on your personality?

No. It's ultimately pointless, like everything, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy trying to better yourself.
Think of it like playing music or any past time you might enjoy that envolves playing it for the sake of playing it, not to win or because there's a point but because you like to do it.

The buddhist way of overcoming desires - we're imprisoned by our desires and will only be happy by being free from wanting things.

This doesn't mean you should want to not want things. Go with the thing that feels right.
Also, desires not to be confused with needs.

What would be the point of that?

For the hell of it. You can't do nothing while you're alive, so why not fill your time with things you like, and maybe on the way get to like the things you didn't know of or disliked.

Is it better to be selfish or selfless?

One must be happy in himself before being happy with others.
This sort of thing can be found in ancient Greek thought aswell. Where ethics contribute to society. The individual contributes to the whole because you can't change someone, they have to do it themselves.

So really, the question for atheists is: what's your motivation?

To live free, happy, challenged, new, unresolved, changing etc...

There is no fundamental difference in being happy or sad (one mans heaven, another mans hell etc...), but I think it is widely accepted that for some reason it feels better to be happy.

Good Luck.
AD.

Dave! · 06-03-2008 2:31pm

Interesting and original question for a change!

I can't say I have any particular motivation for self-growth to be honest. As long as I'm happy and others around me are happy, then that's usually good enough.

The buddhist way of overcoming desires - we're imprisoned by our desires and will only be happy by being free from wanting things.

hmmm... Is that a rather profound way of saying that you'll be happy when you have everything you need, or is it that you have to actually deny yourself things that you desire, and get to a state of mind where you no longer have them?

If it's the former then that's pretty sensible.

If it's the latter, then I don't see the point in denying yourself things that won't damage others.

Is it better to be selfish or selfless?

Better for who/what? The individual? Society? And "better" in what sense? Better as in good or better as in moral?

Xhristy · 06-03-2008 6:26pm

This post has been deleted.

Joe1919 · 06-03-2008 8:22pm

Very good book worth reading is "Philosophers without Gods" which tries to answer that question. Another favorite of mine is The Myth Of Sisyphus by Camus, although its quite different.
Being an Atheist does not mean life has no meaning. Indeed, many atheists argue that life has more importance and meaning as there is no need to focus on another world or whatever.

An Fear Aniar · 07-03-2008 10:26am

Good, I'm reassured.

When I was an atheist I had to work quite hard to try to do what I thought was the right thing.

In my experience, genuine atheists think a lot about living right and are people who have a lot of personal integrity and decency.

When I first looked at this forum all I saw was people slagging off religion, which I think is beside the point. Never mind what other people do, what do I do? I think that's something all human beings need to look at.

.

07-03-2008 10:30am

DaveMcG wrote:

hmmm... Is that a rather profound way of saying that you'll be happy when you have everything you need, or is it that you have to actually deny yourself things that you desire, and get to a state of mind where you no longer have them?

If it's the former then that's pretty sensible.

If it's the latter, then I don't see the point in denying yourself things that won't damage others.

Well to take an example, I think the point is something like being obsessed with having everything in the latest fashion, which changes a fair bit all the time. As in, living in a perpetual state of must have, have, move on, must have, have, move on. While you're in a state of "omg i wont be happy til i have x item", you won't be happy. But then there'll be y item.

It's not to say we shouldn't want anything, the whole idea is moderation.
And while not damaging others is always a plus, it is good to take a step back now and then and re-evaluate if you really want/need something and if you are working yourself into discontent because you don't have it. Just for some perspective

An Fear Aniar · 07-03-2008 10:30am

Xhristy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes but why?

Is it just your nature?

Or do you have some deep down concept of higher things built into your DNA?

Where does your sense of good come from? Do you have some reference point?

.

Dades · 07-03-2008 10:46am

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

When I first looked at this forum all I saw was people slagging off religion, which I think is beside the point.

It's a public forum and I guess it comes with the territory.
I'd prefer less of it myself.

Beruthiel · 07-03-2008 11:00am

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

If you're an atheist, is there any point in in working on your personality?

Nobody is perfect.
As a young wan I was shy, not very confident or self reliant. I purposely worked on gaining confidence in myself, for myself, in order to have a happier life and to be able to interact with other humans on a level basis.
I am now a shining becon of light, so that was well worth it.

Is it better to be selfish or selfless?

A bit of both depending on the situation.
You should read the Selfish Gene.

So really, the question for atheists is: what's your motivation?

Happiness.

Or do you have some deep down concept of higher things built into your DNA?

It is built into your DNA, self preservation and a willingness to get on with your fellow humans in order to live a conflict free life within the fold.
Going around killing people with get you shuned for example, hence most of us restrain from doing so.

Did I mention that you should read the Selfish Gene.

CerebralCortex · 07-03-2008 11:15am

Beruthiel wrote: »

Nobody is perfect.
As a young wan I was shy, not very confident or self reliant. I purposely worked on gaining confidence in myself, for myself, in order to have a happier life and to be able to interact with other humans on a level basis.
I am now a shining becon of light, so that was well worth it.

A bit of both depending on the situation.
You should read the Selfish Gene.

Happiness.

It is built into your DNA, self preservation and a willingness to get on with your fellow humans in order to live a conflict free life within the fold.
Going around killing people with get you shuned for example, hence most of us restrain from doing so.

Did I mention that you should read the Selfish Gene.

+1

An Fear Aniar · 07-03-2008 12:51pm

Beruthiel wrote: »

Did I mention that you should read the Selfish Gene.

I haven't read it.

.

Dave! · 07-03-2008 1:16pm

She said you SHOULD read it

I have it at home, still haven't read it yet though

seamus · 07-03-2008 1:18pm

Afaik, the primary teaching of buddhism basically boils down to the fact that if you can convince yourself that you don't need those things which you desire, then you'll remove any negative pressure placed on you (by yourself) and will generally be content with your lot. Which makes sense.

However, you have to consider that some people are driven by desire. They gain their contentment through accomplishing that which they desire and seeing the rewards which come from it. Others are more suited to the ideal of living a simple life and wanting for nothing.
There's a good argument to say that freeing yourself from desire is a matter of the human mind overcoming the most basic of primal urges. Equally however there's a good argument that if we did not have this basic primal urge in the first place, our society wouldn't exist - man wouldn't have been driven to invent and investigate. So it's circular in a way.

In my experience, genuine atheists think a lot about living right and are people who have a lot of personal integrity and decency.

You'll find that atheists are on the whole more intelligent, wealthier and more mentally balanced than society as a whole.
This isn't because they are necessarily right, but purely because it takes specific factors for someone to consider the concept of atheism when in a predominantly religious society.
That is, Deco from the flats might be as far from a Catholic as you can get one, but when asked he'll say he's catholic. Atheists (in Ireland anyway) are people who have considered their religious viewpoint and come out with an answer that suits them. People from poorer backgrounds, with less education or with mental difficulties are less likely to question or reconsider their religion.

To clarify - I'm not saying that atheists are inherently more intelligent. I'm saying that the atheist population is skewed towards the more intelligent purely because the less intelligent are unlikely to question the normal religious beliefs.

Yes but why?

Is it just your nature?

Or do you have some deep down concept of higher things built into your DNA?

Where does your sense of good come from? Do you have some reference point?

For me, it's because I've learned that when I do good things for people and respect them, they will respect me and do good things for me. Everyone is happy and life is less stressful.

Dades · 07-03-2008 1:28pm

Interesting post seamus.

*picks up pool cue for ensuing bar room brawl*

An Fear Aniar · 07-03-2008 2:18pm

DaveMcG wrote: »

She said you SHOULD read it

I have it at home, still haven't read it yet though

A book that will answer all my questions about being human?

Hmmmm, sounds familiar.

.

Beruthiel · 07-03-2008 2:37pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

A book that will answer all my questions about being human?

I never said it would do that, but it would certainly answer some of the questions you asked above.

robindch · 07-03-2008 2:47pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

A book that will answer all my questions about being human?

No, just help you to understand some important questions and how they can, or even might be, answered. It does have the benefit of not being made-up, of course.

An Fear Aniar · 07-03-2008 3:18pm

robindch wrote: »

No, just help you to understand some important questions and how they can, or even might be, answered. It does have the benefit of not being made-up, of course.

Ever read Tolstoy's Confession?

It might just help you to understand some important questions and how they can, or even might be, answered. It does have the benefit of not being made-up, of course.

.

07-03-2008 3:20pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Ever read Tolstoy's Confession?

It might just help you to understand some important questions and how they can, or even might be, answered. It does have the benefit of not being made-up, of course.

.

Did you come here to be sarcastic and snippy at people or have a conversation ?

robindch · 07-03-2008 4:17pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Did you come here to be sarcastic and snippy at people or have a conversation ?

I think we have our answer

An Fear Aniar · 07-03-2008 10:56pm

bluewolf wrote: »

Did you come here to be sarcastic and snippy at people or have a conversation ?

Sorry, didn't mean to sound sarcastic.

Was busy at work so kind of rushed a response.

I'm not getting into the Dawkins/Creationist debate because it doesn't really interest me.

I do tend to be a bit of a keyboard warrior but I know (from having been one) that atheists are sincere people and it takes a kind of courage to step away from the accumulated baggage of childhood inculcation - which I deeply respect.

I'm a recovering Catholic myself so I totally identify with many of the anti-religionist sentiments expressed in this forum but it saddens me that people might miss out on reaching a fuller understanding of what it means to be human, by dismissing all ideas of sprituality due to negative experiences from religionists.

Isn't it one of the basic tenets of science that we should be open-minded?

.

robindch · 07-03-2008 11:30pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

it saddens me that people might miss out on reaching a fuller understanding of what it means to be human, by dismissing all ideas of sprituality

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'spirituality', then? In my experience, religionists have declared ownership of the word and attempted to imply by that, that one can only have 'profound' experiences through the lens of religion, usually their own one. And, again in my experience, that's from people whose musical tastes start and stop at Mozart, who do not visit art galleries, who do not read poetry, who do not travel, who read to justify their opinions, not open their mind, who speak one language and whose world starts at their front gate, and stops at the back one. In that context, perhaps, sadly, religion does extend their world.

Anyhow, ranting aside, perhaps some clarification of what you mean might help.

.

An Fear Aniar · 08-03-2008 12:50am

robindch wrote: »

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'spirituality', then?

Well, just that there are more things in heaven and earth, so to speak.

All through history, people have reported certain experiences which are somewhat out of the ordinary. There's a place in Wales where they study them.

People receive a deep impression of contact with the numinous.

It's the kind of thing Carl Jung incorporated into his work:

"We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy."

Modern man may assert that he can dispense with them, and he may bolster his opinion by insisting that there is no scientific evidence of their truth. But since we are dealing with invisible and unknowable things (for God is beyond human understanding, and there is no mean of proving immortality), why should we bother with evidence?

These sort of experiences were first systematically studied by William James in his Varieties of Religious Experience where he describes scores of cases where people experienced some kind of sudden, spectacular illumination....

Without any expectation of it, without ever having the thought in my mind that there was any such thing for me, without any recollection that I had ever heard the thing mentioned by any person in the world, the Holy Spirit descended upon me in a manner that seemed to go through me, body and soul. I could feel the impression, like a wave of electricity, going through and through me. Indeed, it seemed to come in waves and waves of liquid love; for I could not express it in any other way. It seemed like the very breath of God. I can recollect distinctly that it seemed to fan me, like immense wings.

"No words can express the wonderful love that was shed abroad in my heart. I wept aloud with joy and love; and I do not know but I should say I literally bellowed out the unutterable gushings of my heart. These waves came over me, and over me, and over me, one after the other, until I recollect I cried out, 'I shall die if these waves continue to pass over me.' I said, 'Lord, I cannot bear any more;' yet I had no fear of death.

James sums up the common characteristics of these descriptions:

It is natural that those who personally have traversed such an experience should carry away a feeling of its being a miracle rather than a natural process. Voices are often heard, lights seen, or visions witnessed; automatic motor phenomena occur; and it always seems, after the surrender of the personal will, as if an extraneous higher power had flooded in and taken possession. Moreover the sense of renovation, safety, cleanness, rightness, can be so marvelous and jubilant as well to warrant one's belief in a radically new substantial nature.

These reports are, by their nature, subjective but should we ignore them nonetheless?

.

lostexpectation · 08-03-2008 1:09am

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Sorry, didn't mean to sound sarcastic.

Was busy at work so kind of rushed a response.

I'm not getting into the Dawkins/Creationist debate because it doesn't really interest me.

who mentioned creationism...? I wonder who's you think is more superior, atheists or you?

JC 2K3 · 08-03-2008 4:34pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Well, just that there are more things in heaven and earth, so to speak

What?

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

All through history, people have reported certain experiences which are somewhat out of the ordinary.

And the effects psychedelic drugs have on the mind, the strikingly similar experiences to "religious experiences" they induce, have shown us that "religious experience" is all in the mind.

philologos · 08-03-2008 5:53pm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

And the effects psychedelic drugs have on the mind, the strikingly similar experiences to "religious experiences" they induce, have shown us that "religious experience" is all in the mind.

How does it do that unless you can prove that there is a serious connection to be drawn between drugs and an experience in a given religion? I don't think it's shown anyone anything in respect to religious experience, apart from being an analogy of your own, and a rather subjective one at that.

Joe1919 · 08-03-2008 7:35pm

Quote from radio show
It has been noted that around several of these passage tomb sites, what we politely describe as 'magic mushrooms' are to be found. For an ancient people, who wouldn't understand the disorientation - mindchange that can occur with the mind, it could be perceived as a means of encountering The Divine.

http://www.mickhanley.com/documentary/newg_script.html

Xhristy · 08-03-2008 8:08pm

This post has been deleted.

Xhristy · 08-03-2008 8:09pm

This post has been deleted.

philologos · 08-03-2008 8:25pm

Actually, good point. But that is a hybrid of drugs and religion surely. I'm pretty certain JC 2K3 was referring to religion in general not just Rastafarism, but fair play. Interesting point.

However religion on it's own having the effects of drugs or being even related to drugs? That's an entirely different ballgame surely?

JC 2K3 · 08-03-2008 9:37pm

Jakkass wrote: »

How does it do that unless you can prove that there is a serious connection to be drawn between drugs and an experience in a given religion? I don't think it's shown anyone anything in respect to religious experience, apart from being an analogy of your own, and a rather subjective one at that.

Well, there've been studies done relating to the similarities between religious experience and experiences induced by psychedelic drugs. The most significant ones were done in the 60s before the demonisation and outlawing of psychedelic substances. What they showed were things like those who claimed to have had a religious experience in the past consistantly admitted that what they experienced on low doses of psychedelic drugs was very similar to what they'd experienced before. There was also a study done on Good Friday 1962 in Boston College where a number of Protestant students were given psilicobin before a religious service. The vast majority of them reported that it had been the most deeply spiritual, religious experience of their lives.

There is quite substantial evidence to show that many ancient cultures used psychedelic drugs in religious rituals. In most religious cultures, other activities which can cause mental alterations/distortions not unlike psychedelic drugs such as fasting, sleep deprivation, sex, sadism/masochism, meditation, prayer, chanting etc. were/are practiced.

It's not that hard to alter one's state of mind, and it's not that hard to fathom someone interpreting a state of altered consciousness as something overwhelmingly real and profound, like a connection to a God.

An Fear Aniar · 08-03-2008 10:53pm

Well, people can't really compare experiences - it's all too subjective.

There's a bloke called Michael Persinger who seems to be able to reproduce something like this by stimulating the temporal lobe.

There was also an interesting study done on some nuns in an effort to find the God-spot....

The only thing about drugs is that they wear off. Too bad....:)

.

JC 2K3 · 08-03-2008 11:45pm

I know experiences are subjective and all, but considering that it'd be rather hard to name a religion without any rituals that could induce an altered state of mind, that psychedelic drugs are closely associated with the development of early religion and that many people who've had religious experiences who've then gone on to take psychedelic drugs report that the experiences were very comparable, it just makes so much sense that people's religious experiences could be attributed to nothing more than an altered state of mind.

Neurotheology really is fascinating.

An Fear Aniar · 08-03-2008 11:59pm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I know experiences are subjective and all, but considering that it'd be rather hard to name a religion without any rituals that could induce an altered state of mind, that psychedelic drugs are closely associated with the development of early religion and that many people who've had religious experiences who've then gone on to take psychedelic drugs report that the experiences were very comparable, it just makes so much sense that people's religious experiences could be attributed to nothing more than an altered state of mind.

Neurotheology really is fascinating.

Yes it is a fascinating subject.

But just about all of the experiences documented happened not at a religious event and were not in an way connected with the use of drugs. Usually the subject was alone in a quiet place.

In almost all cases, the subject suffered some psychological crisis immediately beforehand, then in despair surrendered their will/ego completely
to some higher power and this was what brought about the alteration in consciousness - which was usually a permanent change.

.

JC 2K3 · 09-03-2008 12:05am

I'm not sure I understand what your point is....

Dades · 09-03-2008 1:43pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

Isn't it one of the basic tenets of science that we should be open-minded?

Just because you doesn't believe things that are purported by other people doesn't make you close-minded. I would say everyone here is open to any idea as long as it is backed up by a shred of evidence. In fact I think it shows an open mind to shrug of the years of indoctrination most of us have had.

When you were an atheist, would you have considered yourself close-minded?

18AD · 09-03-2008 3:36pm

An Fear Aniar wrote: »

But just about all of the experiences documented happened not at a religious event and were not in an way connected with the use of drugs. Usually the subject was alone in a quiet place.

But I'm sure they still had a belief structure from the culture they lived in which would have some effect of their interpretation of a spiritual/religious/mystic experience.

http://www.physorg.com/news119882379.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation

Love is the law.
AD.

Xhristy · 09-03-2008 7:19pm

This post has been deleted.

An Fear Aniar · 10-03-2008 12:12am

Xhristy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think that's a good attitude to have.

.

Personal growth - overcoming need

Comments