Do theists disbelieve the same God as atheists? Topic open for everyone

[Desert Snake]

I didn't say they were, necessarily (though, I have met a fair number who are). My point was that I don't believe in deities because I have no cause to believe in them. Many theists (not all, but many in my experience--predominantly Abrahamic believers) assume that atheists and other kinds of non-believers reject gods because "they are mad at god" or "because they are arrogant and don't want to submit to god." These are actual arguments I have read on this matter. I just wanted to be clear that I am not atheistic because of some slight at the hand of a religious organization.

To be completely honest, I have met a few such atheists, and a couple of Satanists, who seem to fit that description you gave. I understand that for you personally, this is not the case, but in the real world, what you are describing is a reality that is encountered.

 

[vijeno]

You're afraid for whom?

Glad to see you took an NLP course at some point in your life... ;-)

I think your reduction here is flawed. The human experience is much more than simply intellect and emotion.

Sure, but we're not talking about the human experience in general, but about how to gain insight into objective reality. For example, intuition might help guide the process, but it can't tell you whether something is actually true or not. Only logical thinking based on verified data can do that. And emotion helps make your results personal, so you are motivated to go further.

It's vastly more nuanced than that.

Okay, name those nuances and show that they actually exist.

As far as insight goes, well, insight comes by setting aside emotions and intellect! Not making a combination of them. I can in fact make a very detailed case to support why this is so, but that could become a whole topic in itself.

Then make a new thread. Show me the money!!!!!!!

So the intellect, which uses these, has to "be still" and not engage in intellectualizing.

Show me one insight that was actually gained by not engaging in thought, applying conclusions to known data and testing them. And please, please, puleaze, that insight cannot be one more description of the buddhist or vedantic worldview. If being still can produce insight, then that insight should be new, concrete, objective and falsifiable. Redifining the term "absolute" to mean something entirely different, for example, so it fits your faith, is not an insight. It's just a slightly modified description of your worldview in an attempt to manipulate the terms of this discussion in your favour.

If you want to have actual insight into "objective reality", then you have to get rid of the subjective itself.

Here's an idea: You can't do that. That is why the scienitic method was invented in the first place.

Demonstrate it yourself. Do the experiment. But don't have a fling with it, dabble in it. You actually have to learn it. If what you tried didn't produce instantaneous results, well, gosh..... But if you tried some discipline for an adequate time and it didn't connect with you, that could just mean it's not right practice for you, or you just simply aren't in a place to do any of it regardless of the practice.

Or it might mean that the method plainly and simply does not work. You are the one claiming it does, therefore the burden of proof is on you. If your theory is that the method only works for some people under certain circumstances, you'd have to present your reasoning for why it does, and what those circumstances are.

 

[Windwalker]

Glad to see you took an NLP course at some point in your life... ;-)

I have not, nor am I very familiar with it. What I was saying has no connection to that. It was a rhetorical response to what you said, "It was all cool, but ultimately... well, it just doesn't hold water, I'm afraid." I asked you are afraid for whom, to point out that what you said is about you. You can't be afraid for me because to me my response is entirely different than yours. Who are you afraid for? You are saying this to yourself. I'm not sure how you leaped across the Grand Canyon to get from what I said to NLP? That was a rather curious feat. Why not leap to motocross biking or the art of sculpting family pets in blocks of homemade butter?

If you were referencing other things I was saying about how emotions follow thoughts, that would "sound" closer to what I can gather in a quick glance about NLP, but what I actually was referencing was what Cognitive Behavioral Therapy has demonstrated. CBT speaks about the responses of emotions to negative thoughts, reinforcing thoughts in negative feedback loops, and that by changing how one thinks, by changing that habit of mind, we affect the emotions which affect the thoughts in positive feedback loops. But I really didn't talk about that, so again, I'm not sure how you got from "You're afraid for whom", to NLP.

Sure, but we're not talking about the human experience in general, but about how to gain insight into objective reality. For example, intuition might help guide the process, but it can't tell you whether something is actually true or not. Only logical thinking based on verified data can do that. And emotion helps make your results personal, so you are motivated to go further.

This is a naive religious belief. Only whose logical thinking? You think your mind can see clear of itself? Your logical thinking is completely shaped by how your mind is programed to perceive the world. That changes over one's own lifetime. It changes from culture to culture. Do you understand relativism at all? Are you familiar with semiotics? The logical mind only can see through these filters that are put in place which shape what or how it can think and conceive. So you can be completely logical within that framework, but that does not make it objectively true outside of that framework. It makes it only true within that framework, within which logic is constrained. How do you move logic outside those frameworks?

You see the problem is you do not see these frameworks. Your framework from within which you operate logic is a framework of a naive realism. It has no awareness of its own subjectivity, and assume the scientific method breaks you free of this. It assumes the world is just laying around out there if we can just let the data tell us about ourselves, setting aside biases. But even if you can reduce the bias, you do not change the entire underlying assumptions on which the approach itself operates. Anyway, if you don't understand this then what I'm saying is not going to register. The eye looking out at the world does not consider itself in its quest to find "objective reality".

Okay, name those nuances and show that they actually exist.

I already listed about six. If you don't accept those, why list even more?

Then make a new thread. Show me the money!!!!!!!

I mentioned some of this here, What Are Mystical Experiences Like? | Page 4 | ReligiousForums.com but that is not a debate thead, and frankly I would only want to discuss that with someone who at least has some understanding of this. I find it becoming rather pointless when the person I engage with isn't talking to the actual points that are being raised, which has historically proven to be the case time and again. When I speak of insight, it begins by seeing beyond the eyes that see to see the eyes themselves. Without this, you are only seeing what you can see. As Emerson said it well, "What we are, that only can we see". You think you see the real world, but what you see is reflective of who you are. If you cannot see yourself, you are blind to what is right in front of you until you become someone else, until you can see the nature of reality as a subject within it.

Show me one insight that was actually gained by not engaging in thought, applying conclusions to known data and testing them. And please, please, puleaze, that insight cannot be one more description of the buddhist or vedantic worldview.

Oh, so you want to limit truth and reality to only the scientific worldview? How telling. Here's the thing, I have no problem with the scientific and rational view of reality. It's quite useful. I just find those who claim it is the measure of "true truth", to be both quite naive, as well as stuck in the seeking mind, trying to find themselves outside themselves. It is little different than the Christian who seeks God in the sky, rather than in themselves and everything in the world. But that aside, you have proven my point that by limiting what views are allowed, which you just have, you have defined the parameters of what your mind can conceive us, thus restricting your views to a preconceived reality of your own mind. You will not ever see beyond what you are unwilling to let go of. And that, is not a search for Truth, that is a quest for security.

If being still can produce insight, then that insight should be new, concrete, objective and falsifiable. Redifining the term "absolute" to mean something entirely different, for example, so it fits your faith, is not an insight. It's just a slightly modified description of your worldview in an attempt to manipulate the terms of this discussion in your favour.

To call what I am talking about as "faith" really misses the mark. There is no faith. This is experience. This is not a belief, it is a perception of truth. That I use these terms appropriate to my reality is not a manipulation, it is simply using the terms in the correct context I am speaking from. I can say you are manipulating the term absolute as well to fit your context, but it's not really a manipulation, it's just seeing only what you can because of how you are predefining the parameters of what you can see. Your use of the term is consistent within that reality. I see and understand how you see it, but you see my uses a vague and nebulous, and whatever else it sounds like to you. That's the key difference here.

Here's an idea: You can't do that. That is why the scienitic method was invented in the first place.

What do you mean I can't do that? Of course I can. The development of the scientific method has no relationship to what I am referring to. You appear to not understand this in your brief "fling" with these things. This would explain why "fling" is the right word choice.

Or it might mean that the method plainly and simply does not work.

No, if the method didn't work for anyone, then it doesn't work. But if it works for any, it works. Be careful to read my exact word choices. I do not suggest if it works for some it works for all. There are many different methods that work for some better than others. Or, the person themselves simply will not respond to anything because they frankly are not in a place they are ready to. Having a "fling" with something does not indicate a true readiness. And that's fine. No one says you have to. You can be perfectly happy living the way you do. Most prefer not to give up everything in order to find the Unknown. But they shouldn't mistake that then as understanding what those who have are saying about what lays beyond that in the human experience of reality, and saying they are just making stuff up.

You are the one claiming it does, therefore the burden of proof is on you. If your theory is that the method only works for some people under certain circumstances, you'd have to present your reasoning for why it does, and what those circumstances are.

Common sense? Look at any training program. People learn better from some methods and others from others? Some people learn better visually, others auditorily, others kinesthetically or a combination of those? In meditation practices, sitting and staring at a dot on a wall is one technique, but it doesn't work well for others. Some need movement, sound, dance, yoga, etc. There is no one "right way". So you try what works for you, if you actually want to go that path at all. The burden of proof for me is what I do in fact works. I have evidence. Results. Not saying it will do the same for everyone, as everyone is different. But the difference is doing, or not doing at all.

 

[genypher]

To be completely honest, I have met a few such atheists, and a couple of Satanists, who seem to fit that description you gave. I understand that for you personally, this is not the case, but in the real world, what you are describing is a reality that is encountered.

Of course you have. I would posit, though, that anyone who is "mad at god" or "doesn't want to submit to god" likely believes in gods and thus, by definition, is not an atheist... they are more like disgruntled theists. I don't understand how one can be angry with something one does not believe exists.

 

[Desert Snake]

Of course you have. I would posit, though, that anyone who is "mad at god" or "doesn't want to submit to god" likely believes in gods and thus, by definition, is not an atheist... they are more like disgruntled theists. I don't understand how one can be angry with something one does not believe exists.

I think that they personify the 'theistic' being, into the adherents, and then, into the 'teachings', say, what is written in the Bible. So, they are in essence, arguing similarly to as a disgruntled theist, might. The Satanist converts might be going either way, theism or less theistic belief, and they might have a revised view of God, so that would be variable, I suppose.

 

[vijeno]

...

It's real simple. Produce some results. Tangible, falsifiable, testable knowledge that you took from your intimate relationship with what you call "absolute". Show me how you can shed off subjectivity, see things as they truly are, and explain what they actually look like.

Then we can start talking.

Until that time, I'll reserve some skepticism for someone who claims to have a surefire method to know more than us puny unenlightened ones, but then gets into fits when someone dares to offer some doubt. It just doesn't seem all that enlightened to me, sorry.

 

[Windwalker]

It's real simple. Produce some results.

I have. This is not a belief, but in fact has produced overwhelmingly tangible results in my life. You don't believe me? How is that my responsibility? You want evidence it works, don't have a fling with it. Do the actual work.

Tangible, falsifiable, testable knowledge that you took from your intimate relationship with what you call "absolute".

I've never once described this as my "relationship with the absolute". That makes zero sense to me. Sounds like ExChristian speak to me, imagining I'm talking about the anthropomorphic Person in the Sky. Which, BTW, was exactly my point I made in post #2 of this thread! Once again, verifying what I claimed.

Testable, tangle results. Ok. You define what such a test should look like, and then we can discuss how you are imagining this to look like. I'm game, but you first.

Show me how you can shed off subjectivity, see things as they truly are, and explain what they actually look like.

Have I said get rid of the subjective? I believe that is your spurious claim that Science can do! I have said you have to see the subjective, inhabit it and be aware of it, and then you will see the that the belief you can know "objective" reality is an illusion. You prove to me you can shed the subjective so you can know true objectivity. The scientific method? That's nice. That doesn't get rid of the subjective.

All I have claimed is you have to understand the subjective in order to begin to truly have any sort of objective view. You have to understand yourself. If you want to know what that looks like, well do the work. You want to know what others who have done the work say that that looks like, then listen to them.

Then we can start talking.

About what? That your belief system qualifies as objective truth?

Until that time, I'll reserve some skepticism for someone who claims to have a surefire method to know more than us puny unenlightened ones, but then gets into fits when someone dares to offer some doubt. It just doesn't seem all that enlightened to me, sorry.

Strawman. Clear and obvious. Never once, anywhere, ever, have I claimed how I do things as a "surefire method". No, you deliberately are misrepresenting me to the thread to save face. I said it explicitly in the last post, and I'll put it right here to expose this dishonesty of yours:

Post #463, There is no one "right way". So you try what works for you, if you actually want to go that path at all. The burden of proof for me is what I do in fact works. I have evidence. Results. Not saying it will do the same for everyone, as everyone is different. But the difference is doing, or not doing at all."

How is the hell do you then turn around and trying to say I am claiming a "surefire way"?? I call BS on this one. I will say this though, to say you had a "fling" with this is in fact a surefire way to get nowhere. You provide evidence of that without anyone needing to ask. You have no understanding of it, the fruit of your dabblings.

Seeing in this last post of yours you're pulling the "Where's your tangible evidence" card, I hear the death throes of your argument. You need to put for reasonable, educated criteria of what sort of evidence you need, otherwise this is just yet one more ExChristian apologetic that is out of its league, trying to reduce what I am saying to flying Unicorns and Leprechauns, the easy targets of myth-literal thought. Unless you show some actual in the ballpark understanding of this, which your "fling" with it certainly failed to expose for you, you are completely validating my point in post #2, and I'll not bother to respond further. You're not talking with me, but your own imagination of what looks like the externalized deity form of Christian myth.

 

[nazz]

Interesting, because my experience is that theists generally use this as a shield. Whatever the atheist might say, they can respond with "that's not the god I believe in." However, since they will never go on to describe in any detail what the nature of the god they believe in really is, they can always and perpetually fall back on this. It's the debate equivalent of the safety play.

Oh, I do try to explain at times.

 

[nazz]

Being a Gnostic, do you find that theists also usually speak about god that is different to the one you believe in?

Indeed!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Quoting @kepha31 from a DIR discussion




What do you think? Are we all talking past each other? Do we all disbelieve the same Gods and why?

I think we all have the same experiences in general leading to interpretation by which God comes into the picture, or that of what is natural. It depends upon how exactly God is arrived at, and it's converse by which there is no God that can be arrived at that can be precieved or distinguished.

 

[Baladas]

Personally, I rarely ever call the Universe "god" unless talking to my Christian family members.
I respect others in their right to do so, but I think that it creates unnecessary confusion.

I revere Nature, but I do not typically call it god.

 

[Marsh]

So atheism is only atheism to that definition of God, the only one many if not most seem to believe exists. Do all theists imagine God this way? No, of course not. Therefore, is atheism relevant to them? No, because they already don't believe in the same form of God the atheist doesn't. So then, is an atheist, really an atheist?

Hi Windwalker,
I must admit that the god you described above is the one I once believe existed. However, I have given up not only on that god, but on all gods. It doesn't matter what definition you provide for I am now convinced that no god, regardless of definition, exists. That is the mark of a true atheist, is it not?

 

[vijeno]

@Windwalker:

Well, okay. Let's be optimistic and assume that we have simply talked past each other. In case I might have read into you, I apologize.

Back to your very first reply to one of my posts in this thread:

I said:

An abstract absolute with no personal attributes is not very cringeworthy because it's not very impressive. I mean, the concept doesn't really change anything, it has no bearing on our behaviour, our attitudes etc. It's pretty much irrelevant. Insofar, I see no need to reject it with any fervor.

You replied:

I would say that to hold the view there is the Absolute in and of itself is impressive, and has a great deal of bearing on our behaviors and attitudes. By saying the Absolute, I mean that which is not the relative. It leads one to realize the relative nature of our truths and perceptions. That has a radical effect on how one lives their lives.

Here are my comments, perhaps now it will be easier to understand:

* In what way is the view that there is an absolute impressive? In my view, this is simply one of three possible answers to Münchhausen's trilemma, and it leads to problems such as when exactly to break off the otherwise infiinite regress of causation, and how to determine why one stops at exactly this point and no other.

* How does the view that there is an absolute, in and of itself, lead one to realize the relative nature of one's truths and perceptions? It seems to me that it is just as possible to think that, exactly because one believes there is an absolute, this absolute is what guarantees one's truths to be absolute and perfect. (That's precisely what Sye Ten Bruggencate does, for example: He claims that the absolute gives him certainty in some regards, while his opponents can never have that absolute knowledge. It's an anthropomorphic god in his case, but that's beside the point.)

* How would thinking that causation starts at one absolute point, in and of itself, have a radical effect on how one lives their lives?

* What would that effect be?

* What behaviours would change by that view, for example?

* How would that effect be visible, measurable, recognizable in any way, to an uninvolved observer?

 

[Windwalker]

Well, okay. Let's be optimistic and assume that we have simply talked past each other. In case I might have read into you, I apologize.

Thank you for coming back to this and I respect your effort to establish dialog. I like that you key in on this point for clarification as it probably proves the point of departure for us.

I'm going to attempt to respond to the below points, but first to lay out something that came to me earlier today. It has to do with the nature of what distinguishes the spiritual focus, as opposed to other areas of focus in one's life, which would include the cognitive line of development of reason and rationality. If you are familiar with Paul Tillich, he has a term he used to speak of questions about God, or what "God" is to people. He summarized it as "One's ultimate concern". Spirituality, by extension, is about questions of one's ultimate concern. It deals with questions of the nature of the Infinite, questions of the Absolute. Those are not questions of science and reason, which deal with things which can be proven, or rather measured, tested, and otherwise defined.

Now within the spiritual domain dealing with such questions of the Absolute, you have various modes of understanding of this. The mythic mode is the one you are doubtless most familiar with, which makes this external theistic deity form, the anthropomorphic God the Absolute in the sense of Final Authority. The fundamentalist believer operating at the mythic mode extends this into areas of not only faith (which translates downwards to mere doctrinal beliefs), but like Ken Ham it extends God to all matters of life, including science, social order, morality, law, and so forth. The Absolute to them operates quite differently to those who are rational, as well as to those who are 'transrational' in nature (a term I'll define later).

So when I speak of the Absolute, first and foremost it is in regard to existential questions, not questions of scientific discovery. They are spiritual questions, not questions of logic and reason. This does not make them incompatible with logic and reason, but just simply part of the rest of human reality which is not all mathematical and logical, the non-rational aspects of being itself. It is in regards to questions of the nature of being that the Absolute is pertinent. And an experience of this, is not a logical proposition, but a reality that frankly blows the roof off of all our ideas of the nature of reality we have constructed in our minds with this mental models. This is something that has to be experienced, and some of the world's most rational minds themselves have stepped beyond this door to recognize that fact. It does not do away with reason, it is not violation of reason, it just simply transcends it, which is why I'll use the term transrational when speaking of this.

* In what way is the view that there is an absolute impressive? In my view, this is simply one of three possible answers to Münchhausen's trilemma, and it leads to problems such as when exactly to break off the otherwise infiinite regress of causation, and how to determine why one stops at exactly this point and no other.

With the groundwork laid above, I agree. If you are operating solely within the logical and rational constructs, you of course will run into these paradoxes. It just simply means you have hit the limits of reason and rationality, and understandably so. You can not take constructions of dualistic reason to speak of things that go beyond duality! So if you are thinking in those terms, you have hit the limit of it. To go further, you have to transcend reason, not into irrationality, but into the nature of being itself. This is where the realization of the Absolute will be apprehended. (Note that is not the same as "comprehended" - Difference Between Apprehension and Comprehension

* How does the view that there is an absolute, in and of itself, lead one to realize the relative nature of one's truths and perceptions? It seems to me that it is just as possible to think that, exactly because one believes there is an absolute, this absolute is what guarantees one's truths to be absolute and perfect. (That's precisely what Sye Ten Bruggencate does, for example: He claims that the absolute gives him certainty in some regards, while his opponents can never have that absolute knowledge. It's an anthropomorphic god in his case, but that's beside the point.)

To some people it does. To the mythic, ethnocentric mind it does. But then they largely "believe in it". To them it is a "propositional truth". I would never say that, or that I "believe in" it. It's not a cognitive idea. It is not a propositional truth. All propositional truths come from the mind of logic and reason. If it can be defined in such a way, it's only an idea of the mind. Rather It's an awareness of that which has in fact been experience and "apprehended". It is simply put, a perceptual awareness, a state of mind beyond all propositional truths and ideas. And to realize that, (not believe that), shed light on everything we have ever believed, including one's religious and theological beliefs. The mystical state definitely pushes the boundaries of religious belief to the stake-burning for daring to speak it best. It's where all our ideas of truth and reality are pretty much laid completely waste. That is not a propositional truth one believes in, or investigates with the tools of mind, reason and science. It is in a word and completely, radically expanded conscious awareness itself.

Is this making the distinctions clear yet? I'll continue.

* How would thinking that causation starts at one absolute point, in and of itself, have a radical effect on how one lives their lives?

As I said about, it's not a cognitive belief. Those that say they believe in the absolute and can define it by their theology, in fact are in reality, only aware of their ideas and nothing beyond them. In other words, its a mental God, not "God". Ah, Meister Eckhart, the 14th Century Christian mystic said this perfectly in this paradoxical language, "I pray God make me free of God, that I may know God in [His] unconditional being". See that? God beyond God. The Absolute beyond ideas about God, beliefs, doctrines, models, maps, science, reason, and so forth. Seeing beyond our own thoughts is what it's all about. In a nutshell.

* What would that effect be?

Radically life-changing. Ask me.

* What behaviours would change by that view, for example?

Everything. There really isn't anything that isn't touched. But again, let's drop that term "that view", and replace it with "that realization" or "that awareness". That is accurate to what I am talking about, "view" is not.

* How would that effect be visible, measurable, recognizable in any way, to an uninvolved observer?

First, you would have to know the person themselves. Since it translates into lived reality, you have to either be such a person yourself, or have contact with them. Preferably in real life, since online really doesn't communicate too much beyond words, which is not without value, but only a small portion of communication, as I'm sure you are aware.

Okay, hopefully there's some good takeaway from this for you to have other questions. I appreciate you taking the time to try to wrap your mind around some of all this I'm trying to get at.

 

[Looncall]

Thank you for coming back to this and I respect your effort to establish dialog. I like that you key in on this point for clarification as it probably proves the point of departure for us.

I'm going to attempt to respond to the below points, but first to lay out something that came to me earlier today. It has to do with the nature of what distinguishes the spiritual focus, as opposed to other areas of focus in one's life, which would include the cognitive line of development of reason and rationality. If you are familiar with Paul Tillich, he has a term he used to speak of questions about God, or what "God" is to people. He summarized it as "One's ultimate concern". Spirituality, by extension, is about questions of one's ultimate concern. It deals with questions of the nature of the Infinite, questions of the Absolute. Those are not questions of science and reason, which deal with things which can be proven, or rather measured, tested, and otherwise defined.

Now within the spiritual domain dealing with such questions of the Absolute, you have various modes of understanding of this. The mythic mode is the one you are doubtless most familiar with, which makes this external theistic deity form, the anthropomorphic God the Absolute in the sense of Final Authority. The fundamentalist believer operating at the mythic mode extends this into areas of not only faith (which translates downwards to mere doctrinal beliefs), but like Ken Ham it extends God to all matters of life, including science, social order, morality, law, and so forth. The Absolute to them operates quite differently to those who are rational, as well as to those who are 'transrational' in nature (a term I'll define later).

So when I speak of the Absolute, first and foremost it is in regard to existential questions, not questions of scientific discovery. They are spiritual questions, not questions of logic and reason. This does not make them incompatible with logic and reason, but just simply part of the rest of human reality which is not all mathematical and logical, the non-rational aspects of being itself. It is in regards to questions of the nature of being that the Absolute is pertinent. And an experience of this, is not a logical proposition, but a reality that frankly blows the roof off of all our ideas of the nature of reality we have constructed in our minds with this mental models. This is something that has to be experienced, and some of the world's most rational minds themselves have stepped beyond this door to recognize that fact. It does not do away with reason, it is not violation of reason, it just simply transcends it, which is why I'll use the term transrational when speaking of this.


With the groundwork laid above, I agree. If you are operating solely within the logical and rational constructs, you of course will run into these paradoxes. It just simply means you have hit the limits of reason and rationality, and understandably so. You can not take constructions of dualistic reason to speak of things that go beyond duality! So if you are thinking in those terms, you have hit the limit of it. To go further, you have to transcend reason, not into irrationality, but into the nature of being itself. This is where the realization of the Absolute will be apprehended. (Note that is not the same as "comprehended" - Difference Between Apprehension and Comprehension


To some people it does. To the mythic, ethnocentric mind it does. But then they largely "believe in it". To them it is a "propositional truth". I would never say that, or that I "believe in" it. It's not a cognitive idea. It is not a propositional truth. All propositional truths come from the mind of logic and reason. If it can be defined in such a way, it's only an idea of the mind. Rather It's an awareness of that which has in fact been experience and "apprehended". It is simply put, a perceptual awareness, a state of mind beyond all propositional truths and ideas. And to realize that, (not believe that), shed light on everything we have ever believed, including one's religious and theological beliefs. The mystical state definitely pushes the boundaries of religious belief to the stake-burning for daring to speak it best. It's where all our ideas of truth and reality are pretty much laid completely waste. That is not a propositional truth one believes in, or investigates with the tools of mind, reason and science. It is in a word and completely, radically expanded conscious awareness itself.

Is this making the distinctions clear yet? I'll continue.


As I said about, it's not a cognitive belief. Those that say they believe in the absolute and can define it by their theology, in fact are in reality, only aware of their ideas and nothing beyond them. In other words, its a mental God, not "God". Ah, Meister Eckhart, the 14th Century Christian mystic said this perfectly in this paradoxical language, "I pray God make me free of God, that I may know God in [His] unconditional being". See that? God beyond God. The Absolute beyond ideas about God, beliefs, doctrines, models, maps, science, reason, and so forth. Seeing beyond our own thoughts is what it's all about. In a nutshell.


Radically life-changing. Ask me.


Everything. There really isn't anything that isn't touched. But again, let's drop that term "that view", and replace it with "that realization" or "that awareness". That is accurate to what I am talking about, "view" is not.


First, you would have to know the person themselves. Since it translates into lived reality, you have to either be such a person yourself, or have contact with them. Preferably in real life, since online really doesn't communicate too much beyond words, which is not without value, but only a small portion of communication, as I'm sure you are aware.

Okay, hopefully there's some good takeaway from this for you to have other questions. I appreciate you taking the time to try to wrap your mind around some of all this I'm trying to get at.

Just one thing for this post: you speak of "being" as if it was some sort of substance or object. Isn't it just that there are things that "be" (exist)? Why do you need to cook up some something you call being? Isn't this just the sort of reification error that lies behind so much religion?

 

[Windwalker]

Just one thing for this post: you speak of "being" as if it was some sort of substance or object. Isn't it just that there are things that "be" (exist)? Why do you need to cook up some something you call being? Isn't this just the sort of reification error that lies behind so much religion?

Not at all. These questions have a very long and deep line of inquiry in the philosophies and religion. Being - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia What to me stands out in particular in what I am addressing that is not in simply discussing the existence of a thing, is the subjective knowledge of it. When we discuss our own "being" it of necessity is not merely an objectification of the subject. It is "being" the subject and knowing the subject as the subject. That is not a scientific task. It's something else.

You call this an "error", but I tend to think reductionism is the error. It deals with questions like this by simply swiping them off the table and calling them unreal from that point of view. My point in the above post is that spiritual domains deal with questions like this precisely because that is where their focus lies. Those who enter into those domains using the correct set of tools, are confronted with questions like this, those that don't see it as nonsense because they don't look at all. So the argument really should be about the set of eyes that look at the world, and how they look. Until then, what is being discussed from that set of eyes is meaningless to a set of eyes that doesn't deal with what it cannot see.

For myself, I prefer an epistemological pluralism as an approach as opposed to a monological view of the world through the eyes of materialism. It's not wrong to see the world with those eyes, but its an error to think that is the only legitimate way to truth and knowledge.

 

[vijeno]

With the groundwork laid above, I agree. If you are operating solely within the logical and rational constructs, you of course will run into these paradoxes. It just simply means you have hit the limits of reason and rationality, and understandably so. You can not take constructions of dualistic reason to speak of things that go beyond duality! So if you are thinking in those terms, you have hit the limit of it. To go further, you have to transcend reason, not into irrationality, but into the nature of being itself.

That is, in essence, the starting point of our disagreement. You think that one can transcend duality, I say that this transcendence is most probably an illusion.

Now, here's a very simple question: What is your intention in the context of this discussion? Are you interested in finding out what is actually going on with what you call "the Absolute"? Are you interested in determining whether or not there really ARE "things that go beyond duality"? Or are you convinced that you already know the answer, and your only job here is only to convince others of that established truth?

In the first case, I will try to argue why it might be more useful to assume that there is really no life-changing absolute to be found, why the absolute you're talking about has nothing to do with an abstract absolute such as I was aiming at in my first post, etc. In the other case, I will simply retreat from this discussion. I have no means of convincing you, and the only productive way for this discussion to move on is, from my perspective, to exchange rational arguments for whether or not there is an absolute that is perceptible to the human brain, etc.

 

[Windwalker]

Now, here's a very simple question: What is your intention in the context of this discussion? Are you interested in finding out what is actually going on with what you call "the Absolute"? Are you interested in determining whether or not there really ARE "things that go beyond duality"? Or are you convinced that you already know the answer, and your only job here is only to convince others of that established truth?

My intention in the context of this discussion is to show that those who claim atheism are by and large only speaking to the dualistic imagination about God, mainly in the Christian context of an anthropomorphic deity, or by extension any form of a wholly externalized "other". Even as you have spoken of the absolute, or in conveying your conceptions of my thinking, it is in that context. Therefore my statement in post #2 of this thread is holding up. It appears to conceive of God, in any context, as simply a variation of the Christian conception of God. You demonstrated that as well in an earlier post where you took what I was trying to convey about the Absolute and turned into the common mythological Christian conception of God calling it my, "intimate relationship with what you call "absolute"'. My intention is to show that this envisioning of God does in fact not fit with how everyone speaks of God, therefore atheism is only defined based a particular view of God, not all views.

In the first case, I will try to argue why it might be more useful to assume that there is really no life-changing absolute to be found, why the absolute you're talking about has nothing to do with an abstract absolute such as I was aiming at in my first post, etc.

I will say this, first of all the experience of what I am describing is in fact, indisputably life-changing. Just ask anyone with such an experience. If you say to them, or to me, "No, you only imaged it was life changing", then of course we would have a perception of the person trying to convince themselves of something they don't want to accept as true in others. How can you possibly tell someone their lives haven't been radically, unalterably changed? Whatever the heck someone wants to imagine it was that was experienced, the fact that "something" happened that was profoundly beyond ordinary experience to result in this, stands. The experience is not meant to prove a theology! So why try to tell someone their experience was not real?

What my dispute from the outset with your comment in your first post which said, "An abstract absolute with no personal attributes is not very cringeworthy because it's not very impressive. I mean, the concept doesn't really change anything, it has no bearing on our behaviour, our attitudes etc. It's pretty much irrelevant. Insofar, I see no need to reject it with any fervor," was that every point of it again, does not accurately convey what others are talking about. Breaking it down to those points of error in it:

• It is not necessarily "with no personal attributes" as it neither includes nor excludes. It goes beyond such definitions which can embrace both conceptions as equally true and equally false.
• It is not a "concept" because it is not a propositional truth that one believes in. It is simply a state of conscious awareness beyond strict dualistic thinking.
• The realization of this state of mind in fact does change everything. It is a radical departure from the modes of understanding truth and reality that forever changes one relationship to themselves, to others, and to the world. It is hardly unimpressive. It has direct bearing on everything in our lives, behaviors, attitudes, and so forth.
• It is entirely relevant to how one lives their lives.

So correcting for all of the above from your original statement in this thread, would what I am saying qualify as "cringe-worthy"? If so, why? That is the explanation I would like to hear. Seeing how I am speaking of it is not some "abstract conception you believe in", what is cringe-worthy about this?

In the other case, I will simply retreat from this discussion. I have no means of convincing you, and the only productive way for this discussion to move on is, from my perspective, to exchange rational arguments for whether or not there is an absolute that is perceptible to the human brain, etc.

Well, I can make an argument for how you can have such an experience. But again, let's be clear once again, your wording here again conceives of "an absolute" as a thing laying around out there somewhere, like the mythological version of the Christian God up in the sky. You speak of the Absolute as something that someone can perceive, in the sense of "observe", like it was some object like a distant galaxy. That is not at all what it is about.

The best description is you "awaken" to Reality. You're not seeing something "other" to what you normal see. You see what you normally see with a different awareness, a different mind, a different set of eyes. And it is not just the world "out there", but your very self, everything you think and conceive of including who you yourself are, is radically transformed in the Light of this awareness. The absolute is a state of being, not an abstract concept. The question should be, "can someone have such an awareness", and the definitive answer is yes. Then the question is how do they and why is it not there at all times? That's the real discussion, not all this other "does it exist" or not as some sort of thing.

 

[vijeno]

My intention in the context of this discussion is to show that those who claim atheism are by and large only speaking to the dualistic imagination about God, mainly in the Christian context of an anthropomorphic deity, or by extension any form of a wholly externalized "other". Even as you have spoken of the absolute, or in conveying your conceptions of my thinking, it is in that context.

Yes, and the same goes for you. It is impossible to talk about the absolute in a really clear-cut way, because language is intrinsically dualistic. One might be able to say what cannot be said about the absolute: One cannot assign attributes to it, one cannot treat it as a thing.

You see, I actually agree with you that "the rational mind cannot grasp the absolute". The difference between us is that, where I steadfastly refuse to go beyond that and treat the absolute as existing in any way (because nobody was ever able to show me that it does exist, and because I think there are far too many examples of people falling for their own delusions), you essentially treat it as existing (even if it's not-quite-existing or transcendently-existing, or "a state beyond rationality" etc.). You necessarily have to reify it the moment you start thinking about it. If you actually were in a completely realized state, such as they say a buddha might be, I highly doubt you'd be posting stuff on online forums and engaging in debates with people like me.

I will say this, first of all the experience of what I am describing is in fact, indisputably life-changing. Just ask anyone with such an experience. If you say to them, or to me, "No, you only imaged it was life changing", then of course we would have a perception of the person trying to convince themselves of something they don't want to accept as true in others. How can you possibly tell someone their lives haven't been radically, unalterably changed? Whatever the heck someone wants to imagine it was that was experienced, the fact that "something" happened that was profoundly beyond ordinary experience to result in this, stands. The experience is not meant to prove a theology! So why try to tell someone their experience was not real?

I had a few experiences that I have come to see as unreal in hindsight. So have many, many other people. Personally, I think pursuing the truth is important. I think that, when we endeavour into spirituality and find the-one-absolute-truth-that-really-holds, whether that be god, "the Absolute", zen, or whatever, the chances of us actually experiencing what we think we experience are so slim as to be practically nonexistent.

By the way, you told me that my experience was invalid, too, remember? Because I didn't come out of my experiences with the same interpretation as you, I had not "put in the work" or somesuch. Why would you reserve the right to doubt my experience, while I don't get to do the same with yours?

Well and also, I like to think about stuff.

Also, and I cannot stress this enough, I'm just a big fat *******.

But then, to be precise I don't even do what you think I do. I don't declare your experience void or invalid. I believe you that there was an experience that changed you life. I just doubt that your interpretation of said experience is useful. I don't think that a life-changing experience necessarily has to be "real". Many religious experiences are life-changing, but since they take place in all kinds of religions, and those religions contradict each other on pretty much everything, almost all interpretations of those experiences must be illusory.

• It is not necessarily "with no personal attributes" as it neither includes nor excludes. It goes beyond such definitions which can embrace both conceptions as equally true and equally false.
• It is not a "concept" because it is not a propositional truth that one believes in. It is simply a state of conscious awareness beyond strict dualistic thinking.

See what you did there? You went from "it is not necessarily (x)" (which one can say) to "it goes beyond such definitions" (which is probably right at the limit of what you can say about the absolute with any justification) to "it is a state of conscious awareness", which is way, way, WAY beyond. Here, you have declared the absolute to be something relative (a state). Remember my lines above? You are talking in dualistic ways. I have no way of knowing whether you also THINK about this in dualistic ways. I'm inclined to do so, because thinking basically seems to work that way, but ultimately I don't know.

By the way, when I started talking about the abstract absolute in my first posting, I was *solely* talking about the *first* concept. *This* is what I claimed to be irrelevant. What you call "the Absolute" is not irrelevant at all; those two are not the same thing.

 

[psychoslice]

I personally cannot understand why a thread like this has gone so long, how can an atheist have a belief in a god, when the very name says there isn't a god, its mind boggling why anyone would even start a thread like this, unless of course it a big joke.