Atheists, theists, outside views, and empiricism

[Audie]

But it's unfair to group all theists like that possibly 20% or so. Since you seem to be talking more of the Ken Ham type, going by the statement about "flood believers".

In the US for example, a lot of Christians aren't really that vocal or set in their ways, but the ones who are, are sure good about getting attention and camera time.

The bigger box of god believing is what I mean.

 

[Audie]

Yes, very much so. Which is why I made the qualifier at the end of that post, where theism when treated as matter of doing science and reason, is reducing God to a mental object. "God" needs to engage the whole person, which is more than just reason.

Any authentic mystical realization of Reality, recognizes that "thought world" is not reality. It is "maya" or the world of illusion. So reasoning God, is a mental construct, not God, or as Meister Eckhart might put it, "God beyond God".

"Authentic mystical realization of reality" : D

 

[Windwalker]

"Authentic mystical realization of reality" : D

Yes. Correct. Meaning it engages the whole person, not just their cognitions and beliefs, such as they are. In other words, it is transformative in nature, and therefore authentic. You don't believe there is such a thing as authentic versus inauthentic anything?

 

[Audie]

Yes. Correct. Meaning it engages the whole person, not just their cognitions and beliefs, such as they are. In other words, it is transformative in nature, and therefore authentic. You don't believe there is such a thing as authentic versus inauthentic anything?

What weird post.

 

[PureX]

We are all living in a big fictional story we call "reality". There is no avoiding this. So the applicable question becomes: how best to do that?

There are both theists and atheists that are trying very hard to deny the fact that they are living in a mystery by convincing themselves that their story of reality IS REALITY. So that there is no mystery. They believe they've got it figured out and they will fight hard to maintain that belief. These are the cult-like zealots on both sides of the extant god argument.

And there are also theists and atheists that accept that they are living in a mystery and so can be both right and wrong at any given time about any given thing. And these folks will tend to be far less vocal and vociferous, naturally. So for me the differences aren't so much about whether one believes that gods exist or not. It's more about whether or not one understands that they can and usually are both right and wrong at the same time, about many things. And so is everyone else.

It's not "God vs. no God", it's humility vs. belligerence.

 

[Windwalker]

What weird post.

To you. One does wonder why you read threads like this then. To try to prove you're an authentic atheist through scoffery? A True Believer in another coat?

 

[Kenny]

I think F1Fan explained it well:

I concur that the statement could happen. But then there are those who have compassion because they have been there.

Hopefully, I haven't said that... and I don't remember having said that... but i'm human. Maybe I have.

 

[F1fan]

We are all living in a big fictional story we call "reality". There is no avoiding this. So the applicable question becomes: how best to do that?

Reality is pretty real. The illusions some prefer to use as a filter is also real, but a means to (attempt to) avoid reality. The more a person tries to hide in their illusions the more problems they cause themselves.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You know, the atheists I've met have been great comforters. If they see me upset, they tend to focus on whatever emotion I'm feeling, without saying things like, "Cheer up, I'm sure God will still love you." or some other inspirational quote that I don't quite understand.

That being said, the reason why I'm theist is that my sense of fantasy is very great, to the point I want it beside me - that active imagination when it comes to the what-ifs.

Some atheists would say that introduces errors into my judgement. But I think you can have everything down to fine details, and still get it wrong, due to not looking outside the box you do the experiment in - to use an analogy. It's kind of like when two great debaters go off on each other - both sides may have facts and arguments that reduce your average person to dust. Yet the average, untrained debater might still get it right due to being outside the linear path of thought going from point A (debater 1) to point B (debater 2) as the two argue the fine details of just a few points.

Great post!

 

[firedragon]

We notice an extreme disability of
"theists" to think outside their box.

If that is the case, your "we" group are group of bigots.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Because I feel that a love of fantasy can sometimes direct one to more out-of-the-box thinking.

There's really no proof of a god or gods that isn't stories and spiritual experiences or possible wisdom one feels they gain from books.

But I like to keep that idea and option open.

One could say that my post sounds a bit "agnostic", but the reason why I practice religion is I feel I gain things from it, that it suits me well from the practices. And the gods for some may be a tool in that practice.

Because I feel that a love of fantasy can sometimes direct one to more out-of-the-box thinking.
I absolutely agree.

There's really no proof of a god or gods that isn't stories and spiritual experiences or possible wisdom one feels they gain from books.
I absolutely agree

But I like to keep that idea and option open.
I absolutely agree. I'm an atheist because I've yet to be presented with sufficient evidence to warrant any belief, which means that I'm open to the idea that someday someone MIGHT present me with sufficient evidence.

One could say that my post sounds a bit "agnostic", but the reason why I practice religion is I feel I gain things from it, that it suits me well from the practices. And the gods for some may be a tool in that practice.

This is where you lose me. If you're are actively practicing a specific religion then you've done far more than simply think outside the box and keep ideas and options open. Because unless you are practicing ALL religions (which doesn't seem possible, since some religions contradict one another) then you've decided to close certain ideas and options in favor of others.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

This is where you lose me. If you're are actively practicing a specific religion then you've done far more than simply think outside the box and keep ideas and options open. Because unless you are practicing ALL religions (which doesn't seem possible, since some religions contradict one another) then you've decided to close certain ideas and options in favor of others.

It may seem that way. However, not every religious person takes a "narrow is the path" mindset to thinking.

To use another analogy, let's say that a person is bored with their life as it is, and feels things are insufficient as they are, sitting on the couch all day eating potato chips. They start going to the gym, and feel it adds to their life. They start lifting weights, but some forms of exercise, they don't incorporate into their routine.

It may seem that they are picking favorites with their exercise regimen, what exercises to do, but really, they're probably doing what appeals to them and what they think suits them best.

Will there be people with stronger legs who practice on a different routine? Sure. But this isn't what it's really about. They do what suits them.

This is how I feel about non-"narrow is the path" religions. (And even Christianity might be doing some people a lot of good too, with some of its more strict teachings, if so many choose to incorporate it - and not just those who become attached to church super early in life.)

 

[Twilight Hue]

We are all living in a big fictional story we call "reality". There is no avoiding this. So the applicable question becomes: how best to do that?

There are both theists and atheists that are trying very hard to deny the fact that they are living in a mystery by convincing themselves that their story of reality IS REALITY. So that there is no mystery. They believe they've got it figured out and they will fight hard to maintain that belief. These are the cult-like zealots on both sides of extant god argument.

And there are also theists and atheists that accept that they are living in a mystery and so can be both right and wrong at any given time about any given thing. And these folks will tend to be far less vocal and vociferous, naturally. So for me the differences aren't so much about whether one believes that gods exist or not. It's more about whether or not one understands that they can and usually are both right and wrong at the same time, about many things. And so is everyone else.

It's not "God vs. no God", it's humility vs. belligerence.

I wouldn't call it fictional at all. It's quite real.

However in the grand scheme of things, It might as well be in some respects, as I regard death to be the great 'reset' where everything is forgotten as if this life never happened.

 

[Ella S.]

One could say that my post sounds a bit "agnostic", but the reason why I practice religion is I feel I gain things from it, that it suits me well from the practices. And the gods for some may be a tool in that practice.

If you approach gods as a useful abstraction of real things, such as Thanatos as a personification of death or the Holy Spirit as a personification of the "omnipresent stillness," then I would say that's still atheism because you lack a belief in a concrete deity that "exists in reality."

I take a lot from Stoic philosophy, because they built upon many of the ideas from Socratic rationalism. The Stoics personify the natural world as Zeus and I can follow their philosophical line of thought accordingly. But I got into trouble with the mods for posting in the Pantheist section of the forums still, because I'm still an atheist.

Atheism doesn't mean you have to give up religion. There are Christian atheists, as odd as that might sound. I actually think more Christians are atheists than they admit.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

If you approach gods as a useful abstraction of real things, such as Thanatos as a personification of death or the Holy Spirit as a personification of the "omnipresent stillness," then I would say that's still atheism because you lack a belief in a concrete deity that "exists in reality."

I take a lot from Stoic philosophy, because they built upon many of the ideas from Socratic rationalism. The Stoics personify the natural world as Zeus and I can follow their philosophical line of thought accordingly. But I got into trouble with the mods for posting in the Pantheist section of the forums still, because I'm still an atheist.

Atheism doesn't mean you have to give up religion.

That's an interesting take in general. I'll think about that.

There are Christian atheists, as odd as that might sound. I actually think more Christians are atheists than they admit.

I'd like to hear more about this.

 

[Ella S.]

I'd like to hear more about this.

Some Christian existentialists, Christian mystics, Jesusists, and "cultural Christians" are atheist. Not all of them, but some of them, because these each provide a worldview based in Christianity that does not require theism.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Some Christian existentialists, Christian mystics, Jesusists, and "cultural Christians" are atheist. Not all of them, but some of them, because these each provide a worldview based in Christianity that does not require theism.

Do you have an opinion on what you'd consider Thomas Aquinas?

 

[Ella S.]

Do you have an opinion on what you'd consider Thomas Aquinas?

I would consider Aquinas a monotheist, personally. I would also consider Spinoza a monotheist, even if he is also a pantheist and was accused of atheism by the Church, because he genuinely believed there was a conscious agent ordering the universe.

 

[Tiberius]

You know, the atheists I've met have been great comforters. If they see me upset, they tend to focus on whatever emotion I'm feeling, without saying things like, "Cheer up, I'm sure God will still love you." or some other inspirational quote that I don't quite understand.

That being said, the reason why I'm theist is that my sense of fantasy is very great, to the point I want it beside me - that active imagination when it comes to the what-ifs.

Some atheists would say that introduces errors into my judgement. But I think you can have everything down to fine details, and still get it wrong, due to not looking outside the box you do the experiment in - to use an analogy. It's kind of like when two great debaters go off on each other - both sides may have facts and arguments that reduce your average person to dust. Yet the average, untrained debater might still get it right due to being outside the linear path of thought going from point A (debater 1) to point B (debater 2) as the two argue the fine details of just a few points.

True, atheists may have everything down to the fine details and still get it wrong because of something they haven't taken into account, but they're still more likely to get it right than someone who makes up whatever details they want.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

True, atheists may have everything down to the fine details and still get it wrong because of something they haven't taken into account, but they're still more likely to get it right than someone who makes up whatever details they want.

I provided my opinion of that earlier in the thread:

To some extent, perhaps - however I feel that oftentimes, when we're dealing with a complex subject, and an expert who is still human trying to wrap their head around it, that to take the side of suspending judgement against the expert's ideas, while still carefully studying them and taking weight - I feel that can sometimes lead one to a better understanding, perhaps. Or a better way of wrapping their head around the subject.

For an atheist, to use an analogy, you might liken this to "holding out for greater peer review".