Believers and Non-Believers

[Nick_A]

Do you consider yourself more a believer or non-believer?

As I se it, the essential difference between a believer and non-believer is that the non-believer must by definition limit their conceptions of human meaning and purpose to earthly life.

Questions like "who am I?" and "Do I have an objective purpose?" have only egotistic, familiar and societal answers.

The believer on the other hand feels a connection to that which is greater then themselves. They feel a connection to a psychological inner direction that leads to the source of objective "meaning." A belieer doesn't have to have rigid beliefs but only the belief that there is life greater than his own.

It is natural for me to sense meaning as having a source beyond my acquired preconceptions, far greater in quality or wholeness, and desire to become open to it. My gut feeling is that it is not the inner search for meaning beyond oneself that is the turn-off to non-believers but the misguided beliefs that often result and the harm caused. But they overreact and deny the search for meaning by limiting it to the results of dual associative thought........a shallow level of reason as compared to contemplation.

But to imagine myself as a non-believer requires me to think what life would be like if I believed that all this contradiction and hypocrisy around me natural for mankind in history as well as in our current lives, was the norm upon which the search for objective meaning and purpose could have meaningful results. That seems absurd. And yet there must be non-believers who think the search for meaning and purpose more than what is open to direct scientific verification is equally absurd. But at least in this way the essential difference between the two becomes more clear.

[JoelWildtree]

Do you consider yourself more a believer or non-believer?

Believer or non-believer in what? In God? In fairies? In the boogieman? Clarification here, along with a decent definition of the subject of belief at question would help.

As I se it, the essential difference between a believer and non-believer is that the non-believer must by definition limit their conceptions of human meaning and purpose to earthly life.

Well, this question really only makes sense if you clarify the first question. But for the sake of continuing my reply, I don't think non-belief necessitates a limit in our conceptions of our purpose here on earth.

Questions like "who am I?" and "Do I have an objective purpose?" have only egotistic, familiar and societal answers.

The believer on the other hand feels a connection to that which is greater then themselves. They feel a connection to a psychological inner direction that leads to the source of objective "meaning." A belieer doesn't have to have rigid beliefs but only the belief that there is life greater than his own.

Maybe, but are these questions are meaningful at all? Such an abstract view of life can be comforting, but it doesn't accomplish anything. A believer in Santa may ask questions about the nature and purpose of bringing presents, and how significant it is, and how marvelous Santa is to be able to accomplish such a large task in such a small amount of time, and what this means for humans, and hope for a better life ... blah blah blah. These questions have no significant meaning, because their context is entirely fabricated in the mind of the believer. I can just as easily accuse the believer in God of limiting his conception of human purpose by not believing in Santa. Think of all the areas of thought are off limits to him now that he has completely ruled out an idea, what a rigid system he must now subject himself to. Obviously this isn't so, questions really only have purpose as much as they apply to reality.

It is natural for me to sense meaning as having a source beyond my acquired preconceptions, far greater in quality or wholeness, and desire to become open to it. My gut feeling is that it is not the inner search for meaning beyond oneself that is the turn-off to non-believers but the misguided beliefs that often result and the harm caused. But they overreact and deny the search for meaning by limiting it to the results of dual associative thought........a shallow level of reason as compared to contemplation.

It may be natural, in fact of course it is, as living organism we are completely natural products of this universe. This does not imply that any particular feeling or thought is especially significant or indicative of reality in the slightest. We have methods for getting to that point, and they rarely involve such inward, personal experiences.

But to imagine myself as a non-believer requires me to think what life would be like if I believed that all this contradiction and hypocrisy around me natural for mankind in history as well as in our current lives, was the norm upon which the search for objective meaning and purpose could have meaningful results. That seems absurd. And yet there must be non-believers who think the search for meaning and purpose more than what is open to direct scientific verification is equally absurd. But at least in this way the essential difference between the two becomes more clear.

I don't think the personal search for purpose beyond scientific verification is absurd, just meaningless. This is a personal opinion of mine, probably the result of my worldview that reason (not faith) is the most effective way to distinguish truth from fiction. Faith may gain me comfort and personal happiness, an inward "meaning" and "purpose" to things I don't understand, but it does not get me closer to the reality of those things.

[Nick_A]

Joel

Well, this question really only makes sense if you clarify the first question. But for the sake of continuing my reply, I don't think non-belief necessitates a limit in our conceptions of our purpose here on earth.

Agreed. Our purpose on earth is the same as the rest of organic life which doesn't require belief in anything beyond the earth. I was referring to limiting purpose TO earthly life which is different than what occurs within earthly life.

Maybe, but are these questions are meaningful at all? Such an abstract view of life can be comforting, but it doesn't accomplish anything. A believer in Santa may ask questions about the nature and purpose of bringing presents, and how significant it is, and how marvelous Santa is to be able to accomplish such a large task in such a small amount of time, and what this means for humans, and hope for a better life ... blah blah blah. These questions have no significant meaning, because their context is entirely fabricated in the mind of the believer. I can just as easily accuse the believer in God of limiting his conception of human purpose by not believing in Santa. Think of all the areas of thought are off limits to him now that he has completely ruled out an idea, what a rigid system he must now subject himself to. Obviously this isn't so, questions really only have purpose as much as they apply to reality.

Notice how you turned from belief in an ineffable something greater than oneself into an established deity or "Santa." This is the harm of idolatry and it is so easy to fall into.

The essence of religion isn't comforting but rather awakening. Who feels comfortable being awakened? The involution of religion into its secular forms is of course comforting but this is something different.

You say it is not meaningful and I assert that belief in the false gods of secularism is meaningless. I understand what Simone is saying even though it is a minority belief:

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

Is meaning an attribute of the mind or of the heart or both? I say both but you appear to be denying the heart which gives qualitative perspective to the mind. The developed mind can discover the best ways to kill while the developed heart can teach us when to kill. The essence of religion develops the heart. Its involution into secularism and human nature perverts the heart.

These questions open the heart. Are they meaningful for the development of human perspective? I say yes.

It may be natural, in fact of course it is, as living organism we are completely natural products of this universe. This does not imply that any particular feeling or thought is especially significant or indicative of reality in the slightest. We have methods for getting to that point, and they rarely involve such inward, personal experiences.

"Learning consists of adding to ones knowledge day by day;
the way of the Tao consists of subtracting day by day until one experiences reality as it is, not as it is named." Lao-Tzu

You have your path to reality and Lao-Tzu has his. Must there be a contradiction?

I don't think the personal search for purpose beyond scientific verification is absurd, just meaningless. This is a personal opinion of mine, probably the result of my worldview that reason (not faith) is the most effective way to distinguish truth from fiction. Faith may gain me comfort and personal happiness, an inward "meaning" and "purpose" to things I don't understand, but it does not get me closer to the reality of those things.

You don't seem to discriminate between faith IN something and faith as a human attribute: faith IN Christ as opposed to the faith OF Christ.

Faith as a human attribute is what allows one to retain a human perspective. It allows us to be within life and yet not of it. Faith is this attribute that allows us to retain the conscious connection between the higher and lower levels of being or wholeness within our psych. It allows for "presence" as opposed to reacting blindly as an automaton and in opposition to ourselves..

The unification of faith and reason can lead to the experience of true human meaning and purpose IMO where knowledge blends with superior human perspective.. Unfortunately, such people are few and far between.

[JoelWildtree]

Joel

Agreed. Our purpose on earth is the same as the rest of organic life which doesn't require belief in anything beyond the earth. I was referring to limiting purpose TO earthly life which is different than what occurs within earthly life.

I don't limit purpose to earthly life absolutely, just practically. If one day there is shown to be a purpose somehow "beyond" earthly life (or life within the universe), I'm not closed to it, but I expect evidence of it.

Notice how you turned from belief in an ineffable something greater than oneself into an established deity or "Santa." This is the harm of idolatry and it is so easy to fall into.

Belief in an ineffable something is an incoherent concept, meaningless. To have a belief (hold a particular statement as true), that statement has to convey some understanding, some concept which holds meaning. Saying you believe in something, but labeling the something as ineffable, amounts to you saying you hold [blank] true. There is nothing there, nothing to grasp or visualize or conceptualize or consider whether its true or not. It explains nothing and does nothing to further understanding, and is meaningless.

The essence of religion isn't comforting but rather awakening. Who feels comfortable being awakened? The involution of religion into its secular forms is of course comforting but this is something different.

You say it is not meaningful and I assert that belief in the false gods of secularism is meaningless. I understand what Simone is saying even though it is a minority belief:

I have no idea what you are talking about here, I don't believe in any gods of secularism. What does that mean??? Define for me "god of secularism", and I'll be able to determine if that definition is something I believe in or not, otherwise you're just playing around with meaningless words again.

"To believe in God is not a decision we can make. All we can do is decide not to give our love to false gods. In the first place, we can decide not to believe that the future contains for us an all-sufficient good. The future is made of the same stuff as the present....

"...It is not for man to seek, or even to believe in God. He has only to refuse to believe in everything that is not God. This refusal does not presuppose belief. It is enough to recognize, what is obvious to any mind, that all the goods of this world, past, present, or future, real or imaginary, are finite and limited and radically incapable of satisfying the desire which burns perpetually with in us for an infinite and perfect good... It is not a matter of self-questioning or searching. A man has only to persist in his refusal, and one day or another God will come to him."
-- Weil, Simone, ON SCIENCE, NECESSITY, AND THE LOVE OF GOD, edited by Richard Rees, London, Oxford University Press, 1968.- ©

I can't even respond to this, because it's so out there, so incoherent. Maybe it has to do with the word "God" being tossed around in there so carelessly.

Is meaning an attribute of the mind or of the heart or both? I say both but you appear to be denying the heart which gives qualitative perspective to the mind. The developed mind can discover the best ways to kill while the developed heart can teach us when to kill. The essence of religion develops the heart. Its involution into secularism and human nature perverts the heart.

These questions open the heart. Are they meaningful for the development of human perspective? I say yes.

I'm not a big fan of "heart" metaphors, since they create this illusory divide between thoughts we merely "think" and thoughts we "feel". It all occurs in the mind, the activity of the brain.

You have your path to reality and Lao-Tzu has his. Must there be a contradiction?

Yes, one is saying we get to reality by looking at the world around us, investigating and experimenting and concluding. The other say's nothing meaningful. it's a feel-good statement to make people believe that they don't have to submit to reality, but can create it themselves!A bit new-ageish.

You don't seem to discriminate between faith IN something and faith as a human attribute: faith IN Christ as opposed to the faith OF Christ.

I'm not certain what you mean. Faith can have different applications and definitions. I'm talking about the one where when faced with the dilemma of providing actual reasons for why someone holds a particular belief, but knowing full well they don't have good reasons, they invoke an escape-word. They say "faith", and expect all criticism to be withheld. But what they've actually done is abandon reason and admitted that what they believe is unsupported by or even contrary to reality.

Faith as a human attribute is what allows one to retain a human perspective. It allows us to be within life and yet not of it. Faith is this attribute that allows us to retain the conscious connection between the higher and lower levels of being or wholeness within our psych. It allows for "presence" as opposed to reacting blindly as an automaton and in opposition to ourselves..

The unification of faith and reason can lead to the experience of true human meaning and purpose IMO where knowledge blends with superior human perspective.. Unfortunately, such people are few and far between.

Faith and reason are not two different ways to obtain knowledge. Reason is how we obtain knowledge, faith is how we describe beliefs which we came to through irrational means, contrary to reason, beliefs which we refuse to abandon, yet refuse to justify in any meaningful manner.

[daedalus 2.0]

Do you consider yourself more a believer or non-believer?

As I se it, the essential difference between a believer and non-believer is that the non-believer must by definition limit their conceptions of human meaning and purpose to earthly life.

Questions like "who am I?" and "Do I have an objective purpose?" have only egotistic, familiar and societal answers.

The believer on the other hand feels a connection to that which is greater then themselves. They feel a connection to a psychological inner direction that leads to the source of objective "meaning." A belieer doesn't have to have rigid beliefs but only the belief that there is life greater than his own.

It is natural for me to sense meaning as having a source beyond my acquired preconceptions, far greater in quality or wholeness, and desire to become open to it. My gut feeling is that it is not the inner search for meaning beyond oneself that is the turn-off to non-believers but the misguided beliefs that often result and the harm caused. But they overreact and deny the search for meaning by limiting it to the results of dual associative thought........a shallow level of reason as compared to contemplation.

But to imagine myself as a non-believer requires me to think what life would be like if I believed that all this contradiction and hypocrisy around me natural for mankind in history as well as in our current lives, was the norm upon which the search for objective meaning and purpose could have meaningful results. That seems absurd. And yet there must be non-believers who think the search for meaning and purpose more than what is open to direct scientific verification is equally absurd. But at least in this way the essential difference between the two becomes more clear.

So, the person who is able to dream up the more crazy scenarios is better off?

Still doesn't make it true, though, does it?

[Nick_A]

Joel

Belief in an ineffable something is an incoherent concept, meaningless. To have a belief (hold a particular statement as true), that statement has to convey some understanding, some concept which holds meaning. Saying you believe in something, but labeling the something as ineffable, amounts to you saying you hold [blank] true. There is nothing there, nothing to grasp or visualize or conceptualize or consider whether its true or not. It explains nothing and does nothing to further understanding, and is meaningless.

The only belief I am referring to is becoming open to the possibility of a source of meaning greater than oneself. As a secular egotist this must seem absurd. Imagine...an ineffable consciousness beyond my comprehension. What could be greater than modern Man? Somehow it doesn't seem so absurd to me. There is nothing to grasp and visualize with out limited sensory apparatus.

I have no idea what you are talking about here, I don't believe in any gods of secularism. What does that mean??? Define for me "god of secularism", and I'll be able to determine if that definition is something I believe in or not, otherwise you're just playing around with meaningless words again.

Your gods are your driving forces. for some it is money, for others status, for others it is success with the opposite sex. There are many other secular gods. They are what you sacrifice yourselves to.

I can't even respond to this, because it's so out there, so incoherent. Maybe it has to do with the word "God" being tossed around in there so carelessly.

I can only assume that you haven't felt the needs of the heart and find satisfaction through daily life. You never question what you are living for...if there is a purpose for your life other than the transformation of substances that the believer is drawn towards awakening to.

I'm not a big fan of "heart" metaphors, since they create this illusory divide between thoughts we merely "think" and thoughts we "feel". It all occurs in the mind, the activity of the brain.

There is a big difference between the reason of the heart and mind but that is another thread. Where thought compares, emotion defines quality.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11023208/

Recent HeartMath studies define a critical link between the heart and brain. The heart is in a constant two-way dialogue with the brain — our emotions change the signals the brain sends to the heart and the heart responds in complex ways. However, we now know that the heart sends more information to the brain than the brain sends to the heart. And the brain responds to the heart in many important ways. This research explains how the heart responds to emotional and mental reactions and why certain emotions stress the body and drain our energy. As we experience feelings like anger, frustration, anxiety and insecurity, our heart rhythm patterns become more erratic. These erratic patterns are sent to the emotional centers in the brain, which it recognizes as negative or stressful feelings. These signals create the actual feelings we experience in the heart area and the body. The erratic heart rhythms also block our ability to think clearly.

Yes, one is saying we get to reality by looking at the world around us, investigating and experimenting and concluding. The other say's nothing meaningful. it's a feel-good statement to make people believe that they don't have to submit to reality, but can create it themselves!A bit new-ageish.

It is meaningless to you only if you deny objective reality. Since I believe in objective reality, the only way to experience it is through objective thought or consciousness which can only begin when the associative thought stops.

I'm not certain what you mean. Faith can have different applications and definitions. I'm talking about the one where when faced with the dilemma of providing actual reasons for why someone holds a particular belief, but knowing full well they don't have good reasons, they invoke an escape-word. They say "faith", and expect all criticism to be withheld. But what they've actually done is abandon reason and admitted that what they believe is unsupported by or even contrary to reality.

You are again referring to faith IN something or someone which I agree is dubious at best. I am referring to faith as a human attribute that can be developed. as part of human potential.

Faith and reason are not two different ways to obtain knowledge. Reason is how we obtain knowledge, faith is how we describe beliefs which we came to through irrational means, contrary to reason, beliefs which we refuse to abandon, yet refuse to justify in any meaningful manner.

You think like the majority. I side with the minority opinion as described by Prof. Needleman in this excerpt from "Lost Christianity:":

.............My thoughts kept turning around the word "observing," . . . in a state of prayer." This statement, if approached from a certain angle completely undercut the distinction between "faith" and "reason" that has bediviled people's understanding of Christianity over the centuries. The real division, the real choice, is not between "reason" and "faith" The important distinction is between consciousness of ones own states and the unconscious reactions of both thought and emotion. To choose between thought and emotion, "reason" and "faith" is to miss the point. Self-attention is the point; it is this that brings both real knowledge and real faith, which are in no way opposed to each other.

Reason and faith are only in opposition for us while we lack conscious presence.

[Nick_A]

Daedalus

So, the person who is able to dream up the more crazy scenarios is better off?

Still doesn't make it true, though, does it?

Dreams are the guiding force of secularism as well as religious fantasy as regards human meaning and purpose. There are those that have come to experience this and search for the gold amongst all this fools gold. They are few and far between but they do exist.

Fool’s gold exists because there is real gold. –Rumi.

[JoelWildtree]

Joel

Belief in an ineffable something is an incoherent concept, meaningless. To have a belief (hold a particular statement as true), that statement has to convey some understanding, some concept which holds meaning. Saying you believe in something, but labeling the something as ineffable, amounts to you saying you hold [blank] true. There is nothing there, nothing to grasp or visualize or conceptualize or consider whether its true or not. It explains nothing and does nothing to further understanding, and is meaningless.

The only belief I am referring to is becoming open to the possibility of a source of meaning greater than oneself. As a secular egotist this must seem absurd. Imagine...an ineffable consciousness beyond my comprehension. What could be greater than modern Man? Somehow it doesn't seem so absurd to me. There is nothing to grasp and visualize with out limited sensory apparatus.

On this point, being "open" to the possibility of something is not the same as believing it. I don't believe that there is a source of meaning greater than humanity, rather that each source of meaning is relative only to itself, and to the values it holds. Each human provides his/her own meaning through living life, and recognizing it's values. Other organism may be able to find meaning as well, although I don't know, I'm only human. There may be more intelligent species on other planets, but any "meaning" they provide is not higher or greater than any other meaning, just relative to the values of that organism or entity. I'm quite open to the possibility that there are other levels of purpose or meaning, maybe the collective of human minds actually emerges into a ultra conscience which supplies it's own values. But this purpose is not "greater" than any other beings purpose, because of the relative values we hold.

I have no idea what you are talking about here, I don't believe in any gods of secularism. What does that mean??? Define for me "god of secularism", and I'll be able to determine if that definition is something I believe in or not, otherwise you're just playing around with meaningless words again.

Your gods are your driving forces. for some it is money, for others status, for others it is success with the opposite sex. There are many other secular gods. They are what you sacrifice yourselves to.

I can't even respond to this, because it's so out there, so incoherent. Maybe it has to do with the word "God" being tossed around in there so carelessly.

I can only assume that you haven't felt the needs of the heart and find satisfaction through daily life. You never question what you are living for...if there is a purpose for your life other than the transformation of substances that the believer is drawn towards awakening to.

I'm not a big fan of "heart" metaphors, since they create this illusory divide between thoughts we merely "think" and thoughts we "feel". It all occurs in the mind, the activity of the brain.

There is a big difference between the reason of the heart and mind but that is another thread. Where thought compares, emotion defines quality.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11023208/

Recent HeartMath studies define a critical link between the heart and brain. The heart is in a constant two-way dialogue with the brain — our emotions change the signals the brain sends to the heart and the heart responds in complex ways. However, we now know that the heart sends more information to the brain than the brain sends to the heart. And the brain responds to the heart in many important ways. This research explains how the heart responds to emotional and mental reactions and why certain emotions stress the body and drain our energy. As we experience feelings like anger, frustration, anxiety and insecurity, our heart rhythm patterns become more erratic. These erratic patterns are sent to the emotional centers in the brain, which it recognizes as negative or stressful feelings. These signals create the actual feelings we experience in the heart area and the body. The erratic heart rhythms also block our ability to think clearly.

Yes, one is saying we get to reality by looking at the world around us, investigating and experimenting and concluding. The other say's nothing meaningful. it's a feel-good statement to make people believe that they don't have to submit to reality, but can create it themselves!A bit new-ageish.

It is meaningless to you only if you deny objective reality. Since I believe in objective reality, the only way to experience it is through objective thought or consciousness which can only begin when the associative thought stops.

I'm not certain what you mean. Faith can have different applications and definitions. I'm talking about the one where when faced with the dilemma of providing actual reasons for why someone holds a particular belief, but knowing full well they don't have good reasons, they invoke an escape-word. They say "faith", and expect all criticism to be withheld. But what they've actually done is abandon reason and admitted that what they believe is unsupported by or even contrary to reality.

You are again referring to faith IN something or someone which I agree is dubious at best. I am referring to faith as a human attribute that can be developed. as part of human potential.

Faith and reason are not two different ways to obtain knowledge. Reason is how we obtain knowledge, faith is how we describe beliefs which we came to through irrational means, contrary to reason, beliefs which we refuse to abandon, yet refuse to justify in any meaningful manner.

You think like the majority. I side with the minority opinion as described by Prof. Needleman in this excerpt from "Lost Christianity:":

.............My thoughts kept turning around the word "observing," . . . in a state of prayer." This statement, if approached from a certain angle completely undercut the distinction between "faith" and "reason" that has bediviled people's understanding of Christianity over the centuries. The real division, the real choice, is not between "reason" and "faith" The important distinction is between consciousness of ones own states and the unconscious reactions of both thought and emotion. To choose between thought and emotion, "reason" and "faith" is to miss the point. Self-attention is the point; it is this that brings both real knowledge and real faith, which are in no way opposed to each other.

Reason and faith are only in opposition for us while we lack conscious presence.

As for the rest of this, I can't really follow your argument ... at all.

[Nick_A]

Joel

On this point, being "open" to the possibility of something is not the same as believing it. I don't believe that there is a source of meaning greater than humanity, rather that each source of meaning is relative only to itself, and to the values it holds. Each human provides his/her own meaning through living life, and recognizing it's values. Other organism may be able to find meaning as well, although I don't know, I'm only human. There may be more intelligent species on other planets, but any "meaning" they provide is not higher or greater than any other meaning, just relative to the values of that organism or entity. I'm quite open to the possibility that there are other levels of purpose or meaning, maybe the collective of human minds actually emerges into a ultra conscience which supplies it's own values. But this purpose is not "greater" than any other beings purpose, because of the relative values we hold.

Buddhists and Christians will disagree. In Buddhism the Dharma is knowledge of universal laws that also give meaning to humanity. In Christianity wisdom is conscious knowledge of God's will manifesting through universsal laws. In the following Wisdom is speaking:

Proverbs 8: 22-33

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water...
When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth... when he gave the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment; when he appointed the foundations of the earth: then I was by him...
Now therefore harken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.
Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

Naturally since I believe in intelligent design, I believe in objective wisdom or conscious knowledge of the interactions of universal laws.

You limit meaning to human subjective interpretation based on earthly consideration. For me, meaning transcends the limitations of nature's way and based on universal laws. As a believer it is natural for me. As a non-believer limiting meaning to human interpretation is natural for you. I hope your path is as meaningful to you as mine is for me.

[bernee51]

Do you consider yourself more a believer or non-believer?

As I see it, the essential difference between a believer and non-believer is that the non-believer must by definition limit their conceptions of human meaning and purpose to earthly life.

Questions like "who am I?" and "Do I have an objective purpose?" have only egotistic, familiar and societal answers.

I presume you can back this up.

The second question regarding objective purpose is definitely caught up with the illusion of an individual self - egotistic, familiar and societal as you describe it.

The second however is the antithesis of this. In contemplating the answer to the question 'who am i?' the very idea of a separate self must dissolve. True understanding of this question reveals a self that is a non-personal, all inclusive awareness. The assumption the question is egotistical assumes any answer is leading towards the idea of an individual self, which, if fact, is essentially non-existent being a fabrication of the mind and which obscures the true experience of the Self.

The believer on the other hand feels a connection to that which is greater then themselves.

A believer in what?

It is natural for me to sense meaning as having a source beyond my acquired preconceptions, far greater in quality or wholeness, and desire to become open to it. My gut feeling is that it is not the inner search for meaning beyond oneself that is the turn-off to non-believers but the misguided beliefs that often result and the harm caused. But they overreact and deny the search for meaning by limiting it to the results of dual associative thought........a shallow level of reason as compared to contemplation.

One does not have to be a believer to contemplate? Other than a beleif thayt contemplation is a worthwhile pursuit.

But to imagine myself as a non-believer requires me to think what life would be like if I believed that all this contradiction and hypocrisy around me natural for mankind in history as well as in our current lives, was the norm upon which the search for objective meaning and purpose could have meaningful results. That seems absurd.

Is there objective meaning and purpose in human existence? Is not the so called contradiction and hypocrisy (your value judgment) an indication of evolutionary change. Without the challenges presented by these seeming contradictions there would be no impetus for change. Mankind would have remained fixated with, for example, the power gods of the horticultural era and not moved on to the mythic god of christianity - nor the rational based deity with which you seem to be fascinated.