Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[The Hammer]

Reminds me, Jane Goodall believes chimps have a sense of spirituality.

Absolutely

 

[Ostronomos]

More nonsense. None of this is using accepted facts. I'm sure you like believing all this for personal reasons, but it doesn't work logically for critical thinkers.

That rules you out as God.

Yeah. I read this and my first impression is that it's a joke. What song does God play for a child dying of cancer because that is how he created her? God cares so much about discomfort so plays songs for us, but doesn't bother to eliminate cancer as a reality. It's either a cruel or incompetent God. I prefer not having the head noise of pondering a God that doesn't make sense with reality.

So, are you finished with your case for God?

You are not worthy of my time based on your response. All it took was my noble attempt at truth to reduce you to ad hominems and personal attacks. That speaks to you ignorance and character.

You may think atheism is the truth, but I am 100% aware that it is not. The truth about God is on my side. You atheists are so superficial and petty that you cannot see the light.

None of today's greatest thinkers are atheists.

Peace out. (Or is my expression of goodwill too simplistic for you?)

 

[F1fan]

Depends on what you mean by authentic. Are they actually raging? Sure. But I make a distinction between that and what is considered authentic emotions. I see them as symptomatic of an emotional dysfunction, and not their authentic selves. Is that truely who and what they are authentically? Are they authentically evil to their core? Or is that living life insincerely? I'm looking at this from a philosophical, psychological, and spiritual sense.

I did in that post explain it quite a bit, actually. In reference to you saying that a child growing up among KKK members will learn that is a deep experience of what God wants, I explained this:

That's not what I mean by a deep experience. That's just cultural programming and the experience of life lived through that programming. That is by definition a shallow experience. It is the unexamined life. By deep experience, I mean something that breaks free from that. I mean something authentic and transcendent to that.​

To me I easily understand what authentic, deep, and transcendent mean in contrast to the shallowness of the unexamined, unobserved, and unrecognized assumptions of truth and reality that we just simply adopt and assume through our cultural programs. What I am talking about is that Awakening experience, our eyes being opened to see beyond those filters of reality which colorize truth with their own ideas of reality. It can also mean any major shift if perception.

Those moments can happen in many ways. If you are unfamiliar at all with what I am talking about, then that makes communication of it difficult. If all one has ever seen is the color green, and is told about the color red and blue, they will be incomprehensible to them. It's basically an "ah hah!" moment of realization that what we saw as reality is not as it appeared, and then everything changes. We have "transcended" that mode of perception to a new, more expansive, deeper, richer, fuller view of perceiving, translating, and interpreting reality.

I hear the word "transcend" used a lot. Sometimes it seems appropriate and otehr times not. I suggest that what any person experiences in a way that moves them towards a more balanced living state is transcending. A bigot having an experience where they realize they might be wrong is transcending. Baby steps are OK. I don't think there is any ideal or absolute state that can be called "deep" and awakened. One person's journey might not be what some other's needs to be. Not all folks are intellient or sensitive in equal measure, so they will never have the same experience as a highly intelligent person. I cite emotional intelligence quite a bit, and this is crucial for anyone to find balance in life. It's easy to be petty and shallow, but it's hard to recognize the self is this way.

And as far as transcending goes, I suggest atheists have transcended the need to employ the word and meanings of "god" in life, and this is due to certain natural and invested elements of their being. Many believers see non-belief as a negative thing, and do so without understanding why atheists have no more use for God than they do a broken clock. The irony about believers and how they accuse non-believers of negative things is how their belief doesn't give them the wisdom to see their own reliance and dependency on that belief, and how atheists are free of it. It may be the believer needs to believe for comfort, but where is that self-awareness and wisdom? What lessons are accepted that allows a person to transcend the need to believe in a God?

Absolutely not at all. It is open to everyone. But I won't say that it is experienced just simply by calling yourself an atheist, or having an atheistic view of reality. After my deconstructive phase during my atheistic period of post-Christian experience, I soon found myself facing the reality of spirituality in myself that could not be dismissed or denied or repressed through cold hard rationality. So I soften my positions and because calling myself a "spiritual atheist". I consider that absolutely valid, and there are more than a few atheists who share that, even Sam Harris comes to mind.

However, I quickly found that rationality and reason was not as deeply respected by my fellow atheists, and anytime I or other atheists would bring up that spiritual aspect of human beings in any positive light, they were absolutely dismissive of it, and went on the attack, trying to insult and intimidate those of us who dared to give any allowance for religious and spiritual sensibilities in human experience. "Woo woo", they literally would post time and again in nearly every response in lieu of anything rational, trying to drive us all away from their village, or to denounce it and return to the self-proclaimed "skeptics" fold. We were not being True Atheists(tm) like them, in other words.

The "pitchforks and woo" crowd I ended up calling them. It was at this point I realized that their atheism was just their religious fundamentalism changing sides, and it wasn't true or authentic skepticism, rationality, or critical thinking at all. I ended up dropping the atheist label as well, as I began to eventually see it doesn't address anything truly well reasoned and open to truth and knowledge, anymore than dogmatic religion was. It was just doing the same thing with different assumptions of truth and reality.

(There are several others who ended up here on RF after my exodus from over there. ).

No doubt atheists can cut off any talk of spirituality pretty fast. I do the same myself in these debates. Believers have learned to be stealthy and tricky, moving goalposts and changing definitions, etc. I think it is OK in debate to be wary of the many, mnay dubious claims that believers make, especially when they try to assert fals ethings about non-believers.

Even among atheists the people have different personalities and experiences. In any event they don't need to use mental images of a God to find meaning in their lives. How this threatens some believers is ironic. If they are so tapped into some higher wisdom why aren't they acting like it? Could it be they mindlessly bought into some dogma they learned in their social experience and are lost within those beliefs, and were never taught to look beyond what they were told is true?

I coined a saying others like over on that other site. "I feel more a Christian now that I'm not one than I ever did when I was one". Many, many atheists understood exactly what that meant and it resonated deeply with them. In other words, I can just love others authentically now because I am free to choose to do so from myself, rather that because I'm supposed to because I either fear sinning against God, or because I'm supposed to in order to be a good Christian. It other words, I have true freedom of choice, without it being entangled in expectations of compliance and threats and intimidations to conform.

I came to recognize also through this, that atheism can in fact be a spiritual step forward! My atheism was a way for me to break free from the "God of Fear" that my religious experience had poisoned me with, into simply becoming authentically who I am without that. So absolutely yes, I recognize the high potential for atheism to be authentic human beings.

But that certainly does not happen automatically by one choosing atheism as "rational" over religion. I see them as still "true believers" operating at the same level of religious fundamentalists. That's not actual growth. That's just changing religions.

I have said "I'm not a Christian, but I live like one." That was generally in response to some sort of "True Christian" who was really a shallow dogmatist. Look at the title of this thread, this title doesn't suggest a believer is wise and balanced, it suggests they are frightened and feel atheists are a threat. The threat is how reason can challenge their irrational beliefs, and they have some awareness of the dubious nature of their beliefs, as otherwise they would be reacting this way. You don't feel afraid unless you think the threat is real.

None of this means atheists are wise or balanced. As a category they have no use for religion or the related concepts like gods.

I do not say that the language of God is necessary. It can be important, or it can be a hindrance, depending on the history of it in someone's life. Actually, even for me, there are times thinking of God in the sense of an "other", that traditional theistic sense, causes me struggle. Too much historical baggage.

Assuming there is a "language of God" that isn't invented by fallible mortals. Yes, too much baggage when humans use the word "God" in reference to what they believe. To my mind they are saying the ideas are beyond critique and question, which isn't true. I suggest it is necessary to question anything a religious person claims is true, especially when they try to expoit an authority via the baggage of the word "God". Look at the title, as if God is real, known, absolute, and atheists are wrong. No facts, no test in reality, just bullying. And that's spiritual?

My true judge of what is valid or legitamate or authenic is the fruits that it bears in that person's life. It doesn't need to use certain language or hold certain symbols. It could be a milk bottle as your deity, if that in fact brings out in you authenticity. If it works in that way, if it bears true connection and respect of self and others and the entire universe, then do it! For God's sake, just do it!

Krishnamurti talked about humans assigning meaning to mental images and objects, and he said it is OK as long as the person is completely aware of what they are doing, because only then to they have freedom over their mind's chatter. He talked a lot about a person managing their mind and thoughts, and was critical of the robotic believing that so many learn via social experience. It's frightening to leave the security of belief, and it requires the self be accountable and responsible, and not all have that confidence.

 

[F1fan]

And this is my very point. Why? Why do they simply dismiss those who claim to experience God?

No one is obligated to accept thje fantastic claims by others, especially in debate. That is because we have a long history of believers claiming extraordinary experiences and never demonstrating it is true. The explanations are typically the believer mimicking other believers and pretending they have an experience that was created in their minds. Notice Hindus never have the experience with God like Christians claim. Why is that? Notice pentecostals only speak in tongues, but not other Christians, why is that? The variety of believers we encounter have similar experiences to those around them, and that suggests social learning behavior, not real experiences with a God. On top of that, if a person really had an experience with an actual God wouldn't we exvect them to be magically enlightened and behave in a way that suggests they were really touched by the divine? Many of these folks are arrogant, mean, aggressive, and show shallow vices that tell me they are full of it. They only ones fooled are them.

And look at Buddhist who don't believe in God, yet they are in balance and at peace. Obviously humans are capable of attaining balance and not need to employ God concepts to do it.

My view of God is not one of a flowing white-bearded old man sitting on a cloud in heaven. I don't believe in that at all. I am an atheist to that view of God. I actively disbelieve in that as reality. However, as an atheist myself in that context, if someone claims to have experienced God that way, do I automatically dismiss them? Absolutely not. Why? Because my I know to much rationally to simply be a cynic like that.

That is God to many folks. This illustrates that "God" is not some thing that anyone can describe. The descriptions are arbitrary, personal, and often conflicting to a degree it is a useless word. Many believers exploit this confusion in debate and won't define what they mean when they use the word, instead relying on the vagueness and confusion to hide their idea of God. Not very confident folks.

And dismissing some fantastic claim is not unusual. It is used in law, where a person is presumed innocent. It is the logical default that claims a person makes in debate is deemed untrue until truth can be demonstrated. It serves no person to accept claims as true by default because that is all many claimants are looking for, they want validation from others without working to show their beliefs are true, or even plausible. To my mind it is valuable to them to help guide them through reasoning, perhaps teaching them that shallow belief is shallow, and not feeding their egos. Wouldn't that be a wise and spiritual thing to do for others?

Wrong. I very much assess your views drawing from my knowledge and critical reasoning. Part of that knowledge is knowledge of the spiritual aspects of ourselves. I'm not just going by "feelings". But that said, they are also not excluded from my reasoning mind either. And neither are they for the most hardened cynical atheists. They may like to fancy themselves as Mr. Spock, but that's is a pure myth.

Fair enough.

No for myself, I'm much more the musician. I develop my right and left hemispheres of my brain equally, and they mutually inform and interact with each other simultaneously. I'm neither left brain dominant, nor right brain dominant. I respect and embrace each for the strengths and insights they bring to the whole. They are necessary. I seek balance, not lopsided. Intuition and reason are co-creators.

BTW, I am a musician and composer, as well as a practitioner of T'ai Chi. My goal of a true human life of balance between spirit and form. Being all Mr. Logic, is unbalanced. It leads to error. Being all transcendent does as well. Heaven, Man, Earth is the goal of the truly balanced and alive human. That's T'ai Chi. It's body, mind, and spirit. Balance. Harmony.

I've been listening to the band Talk Talk quite a bit lately after YouTube put a live performance of their song Tomorrow Started in my feed. I haven't played them in a long time and I'm in a place now that I appreciate what they accomplished. Their work has been attracting a lot of attention lately, since Mark Hollis died. They did approached their work as a sort of spiritual experience

I am a songwriter and musician myself. @It Aint Necessarily So is also a musician. I race bikes which is a cruel thing to do to a body, but once fit it is a lot of fun and a great challenge. To my mind and experience human spirituality is finding balance, and that is physical balance through exercise, yoga, etc., and emotional balance in finding peace and stability, and intellectual balance, and that is what we do here in our discussions. I don't find much utility in calling a head full of irrational dogma as spirituality, but it is a tempting thing for many folks, and this is what they learn from others around them.

I argue if you lack those, you can't know what is true about how things truly are. We have to find a balance between these aspects of ourselves, not cut off our nose to spite our face.

But that's the thing, if you don't take into account multiple perspectives and favor only a myopic view of reality, that act in itself creates and illusory reality.

We can understand reality as what is available to our senses and instruments. We can believe in plausible things, like the models that hypothetical physics offers. Why would we believe in ideas that are implausible and contrary to fact? Being open minded doesn't mean guilible and giving in to public whim. Look at Trump supporters who are swallowing far right wing disinformation about his criminal indictments. OMG, these folks are out of their minds. And there is what, 100 million of them around us? With guns. These person learned bad thinking habits somehow, and I think religion is to some degree part of the problem, that being that anything a person believes must be true, because they believe it. Is it a myopic view to recognize Trump has been indicted three times, and has caused serious problems for the USA? The indictments are very damning.

Indeed. They also equally need spiritual intelligence in order to be truly wise. Smart and wise are different things.

What is spiritual intelligence? I defined what I think spiritual is above as three balances that includes intelligence as an element.

I think the only one who questions whether I use reasoning as much as I do is only you. I've been saying all along I am a critical thinker, when time and again you seem to assume I am not because I speak of the transcendent, the spiritual, the transrational, and the like. You assume I am doing what you are, which is one over the other. Reason dominance, over experience dominance.

That is evident. I am questioning certain word uses more than anything.

What you don't see is that I am equally, if not even more rational than you are, because you assume if I were I wouldn't be talking favorably of the spiritual, aspects as at least important as the rational were. They are now talking about things like Atheism 2.0, which is where the spiritual is allowed a bit of of softer but highly guarded allowance in the life of an Atheist. Hell, that's where I was a long time ago. I'm probably at Atheism 8.0, right now . Which for all intents and purposes transcends atheism and theism both, but includes them in its view of self and reality.

I think part of our dispute is that I don't like labels very much. I don't see there being an "atheism" any more than an "Atheism 2.0". Atheism is a broad set of options, with strong, weak, etc. I kind of prefer describing things, or states, or experiences as they are, and not as a set that other things fit into.

I can speak as an atheist as much as I can a theist. But I simply see both as true but partial views of a greater reality which transcends, but can include both. Neither are true, and both are true. I see it much more as rational music. It is both reason and spirit, creating something that transcends both.

Everything and nothing. The thing is we can know many things are true, and things untrue. I don't see any value in being confused and vague. A green light for traffic control can't mean both go and stop.

... I intend to pick up where I left off, but I'm going to be out of town for a couple days, but I wished to start my response before I left. I really do enjoy our discussions. I respect your mind.

Thank God, maybe I can catch up.

 

[F1fan]

You are not worthy of my time based on your response.

Your time isn't spent backing up your fantastic claims. That is your problem.

All it took was my noble attempt at truth to reduce you to ad hominems and personal attacks. That speaks to you ignorance and character.

You made claims you didn't back up with facts and a cohernt explanation.

You may think atheism is the truth,

I never claimed any such thing. I challenge believers when they make claims of a supernatural. The default is non-belief in these ideas. Show us you are correct, then I could be convinced. Until then, I'm not convinced.

but I am 100% aware that it is not. The truth about God is on my side. You atheists are so superficial and petty that you cannot see the light.

Another claim you don;t bother to demonstrate is true outside of your imagination. So I reject this.

None of today's greatest thinkers are atheists.

And you offer no evidence, no list, so I reject this claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Babies aren't capable of holding any sort of "isms" at all. Atheism does not mean incapable of forming or holding beliefs. That's what you have to make it mean in order to claim a baby is an atheist. Same with cows, dogs, cats, trees, and so forth. Words like theist and atheist cannot be applied to them, any more that words like patriot, or traitor, believer or non-believer, faithful or unfaithful. These only come online when the brain has had time to develop to hold the capacity for points of view to be held cognitively.

Atheism does not mean the same things as "empty-headed", or the more scientific way of putting, "precognitive" states does it?

Atheism means you don't believe in god(s). You don't have god beliefs.
That's it.
All it takes for someone to be an atheist is not having a belief in god(s).

 

[Secret Chief]

But it is in all caps!! Doesn't that mean that it is true?

Only a genius uses constant upper case. Either that or the keyboard is busted. Either way, I'm convinced.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only a genius uses constant upper case. Either that or the keyboard is busted. Either way, I'm convinced.

Just think what would happen if the combined ALL CAPS with bold print. The ability to convince would be infinte.

Let's use a larger font size as well:

I AM RIGHT AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!!!!

At the last moment I added some exclamation points. What the heck, give it the works!

 

[F1fan]

Just think what would happen if the combined ALL CAPS with bold print. The ability to convince would be infinte.

Let's use a larger font size as well:

I AM RIGHT AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!!!!

At the last moment I added some exclamation points. What the heck, give it the works!

That’s on par with Triple Dog Dare. Only to be used in an emergency.

 

[Secret Chief]

Just think what would happen if the combined ALL CAPS with bold print. The ability to convince would be infinte.

Let's use a larger font size as well:

I AM RIGHT AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!!!!

At the last moment I added some exclamation points. What the heck, give it the works!

DON'T FORGET COLOURS FOR THAT FINISHING TOUCH OF TRUTH!!!!!!!!!

 

[Subduction Zone]

DON'T FORGET COLOURS FOR THAT FINISHING TOUCH OF TRUTH!!!!!!!!!

You must have read this article about Green Ink:

Green ink

Green ink is a British journalistic term for the frothing of lunatics.[1][2][3] Back when letters to news outlets were produced in an archaic medium based on materials known as "paper" and "ink", the nutters would supposedly always write their IMPORTANT INFORMATION in green.

rationalwiki.org

It is a pity that changes in color are not included in a copy and paste. To truly appreciated this article it needs to be read on the site:

"The term remains a useful metaphor for similar frothing in the electronic age, even though the pages are likely to include every colour rejected from the rainbow,[7] in a tasteful variety of fonts. Though the truly exquisite green ink often appears in carefully-formatted black and white PDFs."

Yep, not even a hint of green there.

 

[DNB]

View attachment 80429

View attachment 80430

How's this?

You win, ...don't ask me in what category - I'll get banned

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't waste my time with stupid articles by inept biologists.
Like I said, unless one of those articles has a picture of a camel in a monastery or a pig wearing a vestment, I have no time for this egregious nonsense.

Wow!! You have an advanced degree in biology?? Why didn't you tell anyone.

 

[DNB]

So only man is capable of recognizing and revering and worshipping God, in the Bible according to you right?

"All the earth worships you and sings praises to you; they sing praises to your name." Ps. 66:4​

​

"The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." Ps. 19:1​

​

"And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!" Re. 5:13​

​

"Praise the Lord from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps,​

fire and hail, snow and mist, stormy wind fulfilling his word!​

Mountains and all hills, fruit trees and all cedars!​

Beasts and all livestock, creeping things and flying birds! Ps. 148:7-10​

​

"Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad, let the sea resound, and all that is in it; let the fields be jubilant, and everything in them. Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy; they will sing before the Lord." Ps. 96:11-13​

One does wonder how you've missed all of these if you've read the Bible before. Clearly, the Bible authors would not find my views strange at all. I have to ask then, why do you? Could it be you're thinking of these things much too narrowly?

Actually, now that you mention it, I was walking through a forest one time and began to hear singing even though I was the only around for miles. Look at that, it must've been the trees.
Next time that I'm scuba diving, I'll try to keep an ear open for all the fish singing a tune, also.

 

[DNB]

As long as 'you' admit that 'you' came from the apes, that's fine by me - that's really all that the diagram is worth.
But, I didn't, nor anyone else that I choose to consort with.

 

[Secret Chief]

As long as 'you' admit that 'you' came from the apes, that's fine by me - that's really all that the diagram is worth.
But, I didn't, nor anyone else that I choose to consort with.

Humans are great apes. Humans are primates. All 8 billion of us including you.

"Humans or modern humans (Homo sapiens) are the most common and widespread species of primate. A great ape characterized by their hairlessness, bipedalism, and high intelligence, humans have a large brain and resulting cognitive skills that enable them to thrive in varied environments and develop complex societies and civilizations."

- Human - Wikipedia

 

[DNB]

Yes, I was just omitting the goldfish from consideration.


So: just cats and dogs.

Have you got any?

Have you had any?

If yes, given you consider them just to be things that eat, drink, defaecate, urinate and sleep, how would you characterise your relationship with them? What would be the point in you having a cat or dog?

I was under 10 when i had pets.
For some more mature people, they're useful for protection or companionship.
But, they are strictly creatures of instinct: yes they experience pleasure and pain, fear and comfort, and other emotions., but these are not spiritually derived. These experiences are secular, biological, and based on perception - not wisdom, faith, hope, despondency, depression or despair.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As long as 'you' admit that 'you' came from the apes, that's fine by me - that's really all that the diagram is worth.
But, I didn't, nor anyone else that I choose to consort with.

Oh noes!!! Another person that believes that he is a giraffe. Or perhaps an ostrich. What a strange belief.

 

[DNB]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion as to matters of right and wrong. Even you.

Not everyone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Humans are great apes. Humans are primates. All 8 billion of us including you.

"Humans or modern humans (Homo sapiens) are the most common and widespread species of primate. A great ape characterized by their hairlessness, bipedalism, and high intelligence, humans have a large brain and resulting cognitive skills that enable them to thrive in varied environments and develop complex societies and civilizations."

- Human - Wikipedia

Clearly @DNB does not believe that he is human.