to suite your argument — JustSomeGuy

It's probably clear that I meant "suit", but it would have bugged me if I didn't correct myself.

You bring some much-appreciated perspective. It's good to talk to and hear from others who feel the same way. Obviously with anything we can be sure there are at least a few other people somewhere who could relate, but as I'm sure all of us here know it's often very difficult to find people within our social circle who have given any real amount of thought to most philosophical issues and questions. The general public is, unfortunately, not very interested in philosophy. At least that's been my experience.

in terms of needing an ideology you likely already have one but you don't realize it. You live your life by some kind of code. you believe what you think is right (for example gay marriage or if you think guys should have long hair) whether or not you came to these realizations by yourself. — David Solman

I suppose in a sense I do, but there are always questions that I am uncertain about. Anything to do with morality is a big one, I'm always changing my thoughts based on new information. The same goes for existential issues and many other things. I guess I just understand that almost nothing is certain, so I can never hold firm beliefs about these things, and how I view the world and morality and reality in general is constantly changing. I go back and forth from believing there is purpose in the universe, to believing there isn't. From believing there is an objective morality, to believing there isn't. From believing there is some higher power at work, to believing there isn't. From believing the physical world is all that exists, to believing there is so much we don't understand that it's idiotic to think that only what we see and experience is what exists, or that we actually have an accurate understanding of anything at all.

So I guess it's just distressing not having any firm beliefs to accept and then move on with my life. But I suppose you could say that my ideology or code is simply that nothing is certain. It's a strange way to live, but at this point I really can't do anything about it.

And in the second place atheists do NOT have a belief in God. Atheism says nothing about 'nothing existing'. — charleton

The original statement was worded poorly, I agree, but I have to comment on the atheism issue because I've seen this discussed and argued so many times in the past and it irritates me how many people either misunderstand or misrepresent it.

Saying that atheism isn't a belief that there is no god, but instead it is a lack of belief in god, is nonsense. You either believe there is a god, or you don't. There is no room for anything in between. You can hold the belief while being uncertain about it, you can hold the belief while accepting that you do not know whether the belief is true, but you either believe in a god, or you don't. Theism is the belief that a god exists. Atheism is the belief that a god does not exist.

Atheism is a belief. Saying that it's a lack of belief that there is a god is the same thing as saying that it's a belief that there is no god.

I will never understand why some atheists insist on being so intellectually dishonest. Holding beliefs is not a bad thing. As I explained in my first reply to you, most of the things we all think we know are beliefs.
Beliefs are 100% necessary in order for us to function.

Saying that atheism isn't a belief that there is no god, but instead it is a lack of belief in god, is nonsense. — JustSomeGuy

Rubbish. I cannot hold a belief in a thing that is nonsense. I respond to any question about god by asking what is meant by it. As it is not part of what I know to be true I do not accept it. This has nothing to do with belief.

Theism is the belief that a god exists. Atheism is the belief that a god does not exist. — JustSomeGuy

This is a false symmetry, since atheism is a flag to denote a lack of theism. You are just abusing language to try to make your point. It's clumsy and obvious.
Atheism is not any kind of belief at all. I do perfectly understand why Theists are so intellectually dishonest on this point. As this is just arrogance of the foolishness of theists who know how inadequate belief is and wish to tar atheist with the same stupid-brush. I do not need Faith in Atheism, just not believe in that rubbish from theists.

You are just abusing language to try to make your point. It's clumsy and obvious. — charleton

The irony is that you are, in fact, the one doing this.

Atheism is not any kind of belief at all. — charleton

It is the belief that there is no god.
The fact that you aren't comprehending this shows me you don't understand philosophy as well as you try to make it seem, at least as far as epistemology is concerned.

I'll try to be more clear:
The issue of whether or not a god exists is always going to be one of belief--no matter which side you fall on--simply because the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven. God is both unknowable and unfalsifiable.
By definition, you cannot know god doesn't exist.
It's just as impossible to know god doesn't exist as it is to know god does exist.
So you either believe there is a god/gods, or believe there is/are no god/gods.

You view the concept of "belief" as something negative, which is a mistake. Belief simply means a view you hold which you do not possess firsthand knowledge of. I covered all of this in my first reply to you.

In my unprofessional opinion, you really need to get past your irrational feelings about theism. Its obviously clouding your judgement. In my experience, this is very common among atheists who have a resentment towards religion that they have yet to grow out of. And people such as you are precisely why I don't use the term "atheist" to describe myself. Much like the term "feminism", it has been overtaken by extremists who have skewed the true meaning of the word.

Too true.

I don't object to the logic of your definitions, but you are making an error in conflating your very logical, and specific definition of Theism/Atheism with the Religion/Anti-Religion argument as you do in your last post (where you speculate on the motives of staunch atheists.)

All religions are atheist, they have all denied the existence of every single God there's ever been (except one, the one they believe in).

If Atheism is the belief that there are no gods of any description, even the completely non-human virtually indescribable forms. Then I know no atheists and I doubt any exist. And a theist is someone who simply believes that there is a God, but that which one isn't important, nor are any of his/its virtues or properties, the major drive of their belief is just that there is one, then I know no theists either and I doubt any exist.

The groups that do exists are;
1. The ones who believe that all the religions and spiritual beliefs so far suggested by humanity are nonsense, or at least not worth following.
2. Those who believe exactly the same thing except for the one religion/spiritual system they've chosen for the time being.

For want of a better system, we call the first group atheists and the second theists, but neither definition are really as binomial as you've described then, in the real world.

All religions are atheist, they have all denied the existence of every single God there's ever been (except one, the one they believe in) — Inter Alia

That is actually another common misnomer. Claiming that all religions are atheist when it comes to all other gods is a misunderstanding and misuse of the term "atheism".
Atheism is the disbelief in deities.
Theism is the belief in deities.
There are various categories of theism (pantheism, monotheism, polytheism, etc.) which help to differentiate between different types of theists, but you cannot call any kind of theist an atheist, as well. They are polar opposites. Just like something cannot be both hot and cold (those are relative terms so not the best example, but I hope you still get the point).

If Atheism is the belief that there are no gods of any description, even the completely non-human virtually indescribable forms. Then I know no atheists and I doubt any exist. — Inter Alia

Are you claiming that all atheists believe in some kind of deity, just one that is non-human and virtually indescribable? Because that is both blatantly untrue and extremely nonsensical, based on the very definition of atheism. If someone believes in a deity of any kind whatsoever, they are a theist. By definition.

neither definition are really as binomial as you've described then, in the real world. — Inter Alia

When people use terms incorrectly, it doesn't change the definition of the terms. We have clear and simple definitions for these two terms; they have inherent meanings regardless of how some people may use them.

Total rubbish.
In the first place it is perfectly possible to make a clear distinction between knowledge and belief.
And in the second place atheists do NOT have a belief in God. Atheism says nothing about 'nothing existing'. — charleton

Do you believe it to be 'total rubbish' that knowledge is merely justified belief?

I am not going to deny that this is a particularly complex question, but when I say belief I do not mean an 'opinion' because the former possesses some experiential relation (except under very particular instances where the two can be mutually exclusive). The difference is that a belief can exist without an explicit representation, but even then, you see a dog and you implicitly remember by some experiential relation that it is a dog and so it is an explicit belief. It is factual and an involuntary belief, because while a 'dog' is true or a fact, you believe that 'dog' is true and because it is a fact you are justified in this belief as it satisfies the truth-conditions.

So, if I claimed there was a god and posited that this god was not all powerful, but was responsible for the laws of physics. He was entirely consistent, never changed his mind about how the laws of physics should be, in fact let's say that something about his properties makes him incapable of anything else. My god doesn't require any worship, has no special religious tenets, never reveals himself in any way, lives in another dimension, takes a completely non-human form and exists in the same way numbers exist. It basically carries out the laws of physics consistently and without fail and has no impact on our lives whatsoever. Do you really see any atheists objecting to a belief in that deity. In fact, if we call that deity 'physics', then all atheists do believe in it. That's why the properties of the proposed deity matter, and that's what I mean by doubting any atheists exist by your strict definition. I was, of course using rhetoric to make the point.

Claiming that all religions are atheist when it comes to all other gods is a misunderstanding and misuse of the term "atheism". — JustSomeGuy

Again, you've misunderstood the meaning of such a claim. Words do not mean things outside of our use of them, language is not something that existed already for us to find, words mean what we use them to mean. We use 'atheist' to mean someone who does not believe in all the deities that have been proposed and probably any vaguely similar new ones. We use 'theist' to mean someone who believes in one of the available deities, but is probably opposed to all the others. There is no 'real' meaning of a word beyond that.

The relevance of the meanings as they are actually used is that it changes the argument with regards to the application of belief. Atheists aren't saying "there is no god and nothing that you could ever call a god no matter how esoteric you make it", they're saying that all the gods that have been thus far devised do not exists and any future gods that might be devised in a similar vein also do not exist." That puts the atheist platform on a higher evidential base than the theists one. They are judging the actual real-world impact of the deities that have been proposed. That doesn't make them definitely right, but it makes the process by which they've arrived at their conclusions meaningfully different from the one theists have used.

It is the belief that there is no god. — JustSomeGuy

You wont make this true by keeping on saying it.
In the same way you seem to think that the more you say god exists, god becomes more real to you.
This is exactly and perfectly an example of why belief and faith are the ruin of all reason and rationality, and that is why I'll have none of it.

You've been using the word belief in an eccentric, non-philosophical way. In philosophy, a belief is a kind of propositional attitude: the attitude you have when you take something to be true. Whether it counts as knowledge depends on whether it's true (and justified). Knowledge is thus a subset of belief. A lot of beliefs are false, but some are true.

You, on the other hand, seem to take belief to mean faith, such as religious faith. This is not what it means, except perhaps colloquially. The philosophical use fits with the ordinary use of the word: I believe that the woman I call my mother is my female biological parent (it might not be true, and if it's not true, then it's not knowledge); I believe that human beings evolved over millions of years (I'd say that's true, which would make it true belief, i.e., knowledge); I believe that Kennedy was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone (I'd say that's true too, but it could turn out not to be).

None of this is to argue against your characterization of religion, faith, or atheism. It's just to let you know how belief is conventionally used in philosophy.

Let us begin with the observation that knowledge is a mental state; that is, knowledge exists in one's mind, and unthinking things cannot know anything. Further, knowledge is a specific kind of mental state. While "that"-clauses can also be used to describe desires and intentions, these cannot constitute knowledge. Rather, knowledge is a kind of belief. If one has no beliefs about a particular matter, one cannot have knowledge about it. — IEP

http://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/#SH2a

Also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

I'm currently beginning to question whether many of my own problems stem from my lack of a concrete belief system. — JustSomeGuy

This is interesting to me, because I believe many of my own problems stem from the fact that I grew up with a concrete belief system.

Words do not mean things outside of our use of them, language is not something that existed already for us to find, words mean what we use them to mean. — Inter Alia

You are misrepresenting language. Words need to mean the same thing to everyone otherwise none of us could effectively communicate (which seems to be exactly what's happening in this conversation). This is why we have set definitions for words. Of course we ourselves create the definitions, but once they are defined we need to use the words in such a way as to adhere to their definition, otherwise we aren't saying anything meaningful whatsoever. This is especially true in philosophy. Did you study philosophy in an academic setting? This is very basic stuff. All terms used in philosophical argument must be clearly defined, and must be used to represent their exact definition, otherwise we cannot have an argument/conversation. Philosophy is based on logic, and logical arguments are dependent on clearly-defined terms. Changing a word's meaning from the definition or using it in multiple different ways is akin to trying to do math when the number 7 can represent both 7 and 10, for example. It's like me saying 7 plus 5 equals 15 because when I say 7 I actually mean 10. This is counterproductive and silly, and it's what both you and charleton are doing here.

Obviously this sort of thing happens constantly in the general public, but when discussing philosophy we need to hold ourselves to higher standards, otherwise nothing would ever get accomplished.

The relevance of the meanings as they are actually used is that it changes the argument with regards to the application of belief. Atheists aren't saying "there is no god and nothing that you could ever call a god no matter how esoteric you make it", they're saying that all the gods that have been thus far devised do not exists and any future gods that might be devised in a similar vein also do not exist." — Inter Alia

I don't see why you think leaving room for possible theism in the future is relevant. The terms "theism" and "atheism" represent what people believe now. They make no claims about future possibilities. An atheist can become a theist in the future, and vice versa, obviously. But if a person currently believes that no deities exist, they are by definition an atheist.

So, if I claimed there was a god and posited that this god was not all powerful, but was responsible for the laws of physics. He was entirely consistent, never changed his mind about how the laws of physics should be, in fact let's say that something about his properties makes him incapable of anything else. My god doesn't require any worship, has no special religious tenets, never reveals himself in any way, lives in another dimension, takes a completely non-human form and exists in the same way numbers exist. It basically carries out the laws of physics consistently and without fail and has no impact on our lives whatsoever. Do you really see any atheists objecting to a belief in that deity. In fact, if we call that deity 'physics', then all atheists do believe in it. That's why the properties of the proposed deity matter, and that's what I mean by doubting any atheists exist by your strict definition. I was, of course using rhetoric to make the point. — Inter Alia

The irony here is that you yourself refer to this entity as a god, which means believing in it would make you a theist, no matter what the properties of this entity are. This is actually a good example of what Ive been saying, why we need clearly-defined terms to have a meaningful discussion. "God" is a term that doesn't have a clear definition, which means that in order to use the concept in philosophy we need to first set a definition for how we are going to use it. That way., when we use the term, we know we are both referring to the same thing.

However, as I said, regardless of what properties or definition we give to the term "god", a person who believes in this entity will always be a theist based on the definition of the term "theist".

I'll put it in the form of a logical argument:

A theist is someone who believes in at least one deity
John believes in physics
Physics is a deity
Therefore, John is a theist

This is a logically valid argument. You can question the soundness of it (whether the premises are true) but you cannot question whether the conclusion follows form the premises, because logically it does.

I hope that makes it clear.

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the point you've been making, but I hope now you also understand mine. In philosophical argument, there is no room for interpretation of the meanings of terms. They must be clearly-defined, and we must all use them to mean their agreed-upon definitions. When we have clearly-defined terms, where we can look them up in a dictionary and see that they have a specific definition, that is the definition we default to. If we want to use a clearly-defined term to mean something different from it's definition, we need to agree upon that beforehand. Otherwise we will be using the same term but talking about two different things.

You wont make this true by keeping on saying it.
In the same way you seem to think that the more you say god exists, god becomes more real to you.
This is exactly and perfectly an example of why belief and faith are the ruin of all reason and rationality, and that is why I'll have none of it. — charleton

I'm sorry, but it has become very clear that you aren't discussing philosophy, or contributing anything useful to the conversation. You're here to blindly push your own ideology, and it's making you very irrational. The fact that you have concluded that I believe in god based on what I've said here is very telling.

People such as yourself are honestly as impossible to reason with as staunch theists, letting your obvious agenda totally cloud your mind and making you speak irrationally and unreasonably.

The only difference is that their agenda is their religion, while your agenda is anti-religion. You're like the extreme leftist ranting against the extreme rightists. You're both just as blinded by your ideology as the group you so despise.

Philosophy is based on logic, and logical arguments are dependent on clearly-defined terms. — JustSomeGuy

Where to start...

Firstly, if you have read Strawson or any of the Ordinary Language philosophers you will have some insight into the conflict there exists in philosophy over whether the subject of a sentence denotes or merely refers. You are presuming the matter settled, it is not. That we use the term 'atheist' in a sentence, whether within philosophical discussion or not, we are referring to a thing. This could either be an assertion that there is such a thing (which we then go on to talk about) or mere a reference to the thing to identify that we are about to talk about it. In this second sense, the term must, if it is to be used properly, refer to the thing that is later to be the subject of the sentence. That is where I take issue with your definition of atheist, which, as I've argued, does not describe the actual people we then go on to refer to in the sentence.

Secondly, even if we were to take a Russellian approach to the analyticy of sentences, we would still find ourselves having to agree, as you say, on the definition of Atheist, but this is not as easy as you seem to think. Anthony Flew, for example considers atheism should be defined as the psychological sate of disbelief, not the propositional one and therefore is not actually the opposite of theism. In fact Diller even argues the exact point I'm trying to make in “Global and Local Atheisms” that a global atheist (someone who asserts that there are no gods, even theoretical ones) does not really exist. I'm not saying anything about them changing their mind in future, the importance is the difference between the assertion "none of the gods that have been proposed exist" and "it is impossible for anything we could call a god to exist". I suggest you read the distinction between global and local atheism, it may help you to understand the importance of such a division.

We do not have to have an agreement of the definitions before we can discuss the matter otherwise there would be no means by which we could arrive at such an agreement, it just needs to be the first task. What's happened here is the people have got engaged in that first job but you've asked that we all default to your preferred definition. That simply isn't how philosophy is done.

That is where I take issue with your definition of atheist, which, as I've argued, does not describe the actual people we then go on to refer to in the sentence — Inter Alia

It doesn't describe the people you refer to. When I use the term, I use it as it is defined in our dictionaries. I already addressed all this, though. What I said in my last post covers your entire first paragraph. It's like you didn't even read what I wrote. And your second paragraph is completely irrelevant to what we've been discussing. Asserting that "these people say that this means that" is something you would do if we were actually trying to agree upon a meaning for the term, but that's not what we've been doing. If that's what you want to do, fine, but don't accuse me of this:

you've asked that we all default to your preferred definition. That simply isn't how philosophy is done. — Inter Alia

...when that is exactly what you did by using the term to refer to something other than it's dictionary definition. Which is also important, by the way: it's not "my preferred definition", it is the dictionary definition of the term.

I can't believe you're arguing against me on this. You're implying that dictionaries are meaningless, and all that matters is how an individual uses the term at any given instance. You don't seem to understand the purpose of a dictionary.

We do not have to have an agreement of the definitions before we can discuss the matter — Inter Alia

If you don't see why we need to be referring to the same thing when we use the same term in order to have a coherent conversation, then I can't help you, and we aren't going to get anywhere in this discussion.

I'm sorry, but it has become very clear that you aren't discussing philosophy, or contributing anything useful to the conversation. You're here to blindly push your own ideology — JustSomeGuy

LOL. Run away!

It doesn't describe the people you refer to. — JustSomeGuy

I'm arguing that it doesn't describe the people you later refer to, when you say;

I will never understand why some atheists insist on being so intellectually dishonest. — JustSomeGuy

And

In my experience, this is very common among atheists who have a resentment towards religion that they have yet to grow out of. — JustSomeGuy

In both cases, these are real people you are referring to and I do not believe they either identify themselves, nor can be objectively identified, as the definition of atheist you are claiming to use.

You may disagree with me on that point. I've provided you with my evidence for my assertion (Diller's argument that it would be logically ludicrous to deny the existence of anything that could possibly be called a god). If you disagree, it would be helpful if you could provide the evidence you're using that such people do exist and are in fact the ones you are referring to when you make your assertions.

Your prior post does not 'cover' my first paragraph, it merely asserts that terms must be agreed on before philosophical discussion can take place and then goes on to insult my philosophical pedigree. My first paragraph responds that a significant part of the philosophical discussion is agreeing terms in the first place.

Even if we were, for the sake of argument to stick to dictionary definitions, Merriam-Webster defines atheism as

"a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"

Note 'a God or any gods' which upholds my earlier assertion that all theists are also atheists as they all have a disbelief in at least a God, in fact all the other gods.

I see entirely why we need to be referring to the same thing when we use a term, I just don't agree that the definition you're using is either honest or definitive.

In both cases, these are real people you are referring to and I do not believe they either identify themselves, nor can be objectively identified, as the definition of atheist you are claiming to use. — Inter Alia

So your qualm here is that you don't believe charleton is an atheist in the sense that I use the term (believes there are no gods), and so I shouldn't refer to him as such?

And your argument for this was that some people you read claimed that there are no atheists by this definition?

That's quite off-topic, so forgive me for not deducing that on my own. I thought we were just discussing atheism as a concept. You're talking about a specific person and people in general, and trying to argue that you somehow know the personal beliefs of these people. This is supposed to be a philosophy forum, and that isn't philosophy. You have no basis for assuming anyone's beliefs unless they themselves have made them explicit. I refer to people as atheists when they use that term to refer to themselves. That doesn't mean they are using it correctly, it is very possible they could be using it incorrectly, but unless they give me reason to believe that I'm going to entertain them by using the term they use for themselves. I have no reason to believe that charleton believes in any kind of deity, and good reason to believe he does not. Therefore, I referred to him as an atheist.

Even if we were, for the sake of argument to stick to dictionary definitions, Merriam-Webster defines atheism as

"a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"

Note 'a God or any gods' which upholds my earlier assertion that all theists are also atheists as they all have a disbelief in at least a God, in fact all the other gods. — Inter Alia

Look, clearly you either don't understand language, or you're being dishonest in order to argue your point. Adding "a" onto the front of a term signifies opposite or "not". Atypical means not typical, or the opposite of typical. Amoral means not moral, or the opposite of moral. Just as something cannot be both typical and atypical at the same time, a person cannot be a theist and an atheist at the same time. This is basic logic. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it better than I can:

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

That same SEP article literally describes the exact conflict over definition I've just been explaining and then goes on to outline the difference between global and local atheism which you have completely ignored. Philosophers do not necessarily use or agree with dictionary definitions which are rarely subtle enough to suffice.

If you don't want to engage with the debate around the uses of the term that's fine, but don't disingenuously claim there isn't one.

If you don't want to engage with the debate around the uses of the term that's fine, but don't disingenuously claim there isn't one. — Inter Alia

I never claimed there wasn't one. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, you seem to have created a strawman argument that I never made. I never said there wasn't debate about various definitions and uses of the term "atheism" within philosophy, I only asserted that there is a most-commonly-used definition. There is disagreement and debate about literally everything within philosophy, it's safe to say there is not a single philosophical concept that is universally agreed upon. That's part of why, in order for any philosophical argument to be taken seriously, the arguer must make sure their terms are clearly-defined, so everyone reading knows exactly what they mean. Many philosophical texts contain multiple pages of nothing but definitions for the terms that will be used in the arguments.

But to bring things back on track, all I have been attempting to argue is that this definition of atheism is the one that should be used because (a) it is the most commonly-used definition in philosophy, and this is a philosophical forum, and (b) it is in line with the etymology of the word. Maybe I haven't been clear enough, or maybe you've just misunderstood me. I'm starting to feel like we're speaking different languages and communicating through a bad translator.
Regardless, I think we've run our course for this topic.

This is interesting to me, because I believe many of my own problems stem from the fact that I grew up with a concrete belief system. — anonymous66

This is essentially just taking the same problem a step further back, at least for me. This is because I know that growing up with an ideology is in large part what has led me to avoid finding a new one after leaving behind the original.

I'm curious, though--what problems exactly are you speaking of?

I'm currently beginning to question whether many of my own problems stem from my lack of a concrete belief system. — JustSomeGuy6

—

This is interesting to me, because I believe many of my own problems stem from the fact that I grew up with a concrete belief system. — anonymous66

I do not see how it is possible to NOT receive and build some kind of concrete belief system. A child may or may not have received religious or philosophical instruction, but adults and peers exude concrete belief systems, like pine trees exude sticky pitch. Besides the influence of others, the experience of the concrete world contributes much to a belief system.

Later in life (by which time it is too late) we begin to criticize our belief systems. We can chisel off some parts, but the removal will show. we can patch in new material, but the additions will show against the old surface. We can try to start over with a whole new system, but the old one won't go away. All this doesn't mean we can't change; it just means we always have to build on what we received at the beginning -- for better or worse.

I have lots of complaints about the concrete belief system I grew up with. I sometimes imagine I would have been better off having been born among liberal Jews in New York City, rather than among Methodists in Minnesota. But... that's only because of the editing that I've done on my original concrete belief system. "Oofta" as the locals say -- very messy.

I grew up with fundamentalist Christians. I was a Young Earth Creationist. I just picked up on and/or reacted to some of the fear (of believing the wrong things.. hell is a scary place) and rigidity.

Now I both want and fear being open-minded. I have ambivalent feelings about the fact that philosophy is full of open-ended questions for which we may never have a satisfying answer. I also have ambivalent feelings about the many different ways to "do" philosophy. Analytic vs Contintental, Western thought vs Eastern thought.. you name it. There are a lot of paths one could follow, if one so chose. And lately, it seems any choices I make about what to read next in the way of philosophy are nothing more substantial then arbitrary whims (on the other hand, perhaps I could see this as a chance to learn to trust my intuition).

(on the other hand, perhaps I could see this as a chance to learn to trust my intuition). — anonymous66

This is basically how I have come to utilize philosophy. I grew up in a less fundamentalist household than it sounds like you did, we were Catholic and my parents--while believers--were a bit more open-minded than most religious folks. We went to church every weekend and prayed before meals, we believed in saints and angels and Heaven, and that certain things were sins. But Hell was never something we really accepted or believed. Sure, sins were wrong, but God loved us and was willing to forgive everybody no matter what they did, as long as they repented and grew into better people. There was also the belief that if a person was very bad in life and didn't repent, they went to Purgatory when they died and had to stay for varying amounts of time before they could join God in Heaven. Purgatory was a place to reflect on your wrongdoings and go through the spiritual growth that you didn't get to do on Earth, and it was believed that everyone except babies had to spend some amount of time in Purgatory since we were all sinners.

Anyway, I do realize how fortunate I am to have grown up in such a mildly Religious environment, or one that focused on the good instead of the bad. But when I discovered philosophy it fascinated and excited me so much, and still does today. Over the years it guided me through leaving behind the dogma of religion and finding my own way, my own beliefs. It's about learning new things that you hadn't known of or understood before, and finding things that awaken a sense of "right" inside of you. Things that make you feel as though you are following your soul. Philosophy isn't about looking at different ways of thinking and choosing to conform to one, it's about helping you find your own personal beliefs inside of yourself.

Are there any real answers in philosophy? None that are certain. But certainty is overrated and unnecessary. Utilize philosophy to enrich your life. It's not about finding the answers, it's about finding yourself.

In the absence of any bigger picture, if you feel nihilistic, the bright side would be that nothing matters. Of course your actions would still have consequences so your choices are limited in a practical sense if you want to be content and satisfied, but there's a lot of things you could do.

So assuming you have empathy, maybe you'd feel better if you went out of your way to volunteer. Or maybe you could get lost in a new found hobby you enjoy.

I find that when I meditate and focus on mindfulness, like being aware in the present constantly, I feel much more content. You can meditate all throughout the day. Even when doing little things like walking to your car think about your breathing in and out. Counting to 5 back and forth helps. And the more you do it, the easier it becomes to be mindful throughout the day - at least it was for me. Sort of like training your brain. So rather than thinking about how pointless things are in the grand scheme of things or about something shitty that happened, you're in the moment and get lost in it. Don't let the monkey brain control you.

I value human connections and I have found that taking the time re-evaluate the way I form bonds and talk to others throughout my life has helped me a lot. It makes me happy to form strong connections with others.

The way I see it, you didn't ask to be born and you gonna die. If I have a choice between watching a shitty movie next to me or the best movie ever, but I have to go to the store to get, I'm gonna get my ass up go buy and enjoy the movie and be satisfied at the effort I put into enjoying that movie. Figure out how to improve your life if you can, and enjoy that if you can.

If I have a choice between watching a shitty movie next to me or the best movie ever, but I have to go to the store to get, I'm gonna get my ass up go buy and enjoy the movie and be satisfied at the effort I put into enjoying that movie. Figure out how to improve your life if you can, and enjoy that if you can. — SonJnana

All of your advice is very good, especially regarding meditation, which is something I've been meaning to start doing. A big part of my distress recently has come from feeling as though time is flying by, every day just rushing around to do the same things as I did yesterday, never having enough time to get everything done I want to get done, then today is over and the next day is already here and I still feel behind on the previous day. And because of this I feel as though I'm never fully present in anything I'm doing anymore. It has all become so tedious and routine that I just space out all day, which is probably why it feels like time is going by so fast. So I'm certain meditation will help, I just need to make it a higher priority.

But the portion I quoted you on, about the movie, is actually a very helpful metaphor. It's something so simple, and yet taking that attitude with everything you do would make a huge difference in your life. Just making a little bit more effort to do something that will be more satisfying, as opposed to settling for what's less satisfying but easier and requiring less effort.

This stuff may be simple, but the small things are what really matter, and sometimes I need to be reminded of these things because it's so easy to lose sight of what's important when you're just caught in a boring routine. Thank you.

Mindfulness really is an amazing thing. But I'll tell you what, it's just like exercise. Even when you get going, you might just stop and then it's hard to get back into it and put the effort. So we have to keep reminding ourselves.

It really is a simple attitude. Watching Goku from dragon ball z got me thinking about it.

Good to hear and I hope that there is improvement.