How many Theists are Atheists too?

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I agree. I was taught by a smart Master to never put God on the left side of the equation, implying that debating on God is pointless

So, I don't debate on this. I would like to know IF you feel a difference (see spoiler for my feeling about claims):
"1: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved"
"2: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for me"
"3: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you"
"4: Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you"
"5: You go to Hell unless you accept Jesus"

Spoiler: My feeling about claims

* Freedom of Speech means "I 'can't' be forced to speak", so I never "need to give proof, even if making a claim" (it has consequences)
* IF using "I believe, I feel, I know, I think" the person shares his opinion ('I'-message), so he makes not a claim
* IF imposing one's opinion on others, one must give sufficient proof IF one wants them to accept it

= = =

IF someone on RF tells me "1: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved"
THEN I won't get upset, and I might ask "for you, for me or for all?" (no need for proof)

IF someone on RF tells me "2: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for me"
THEN I won't get upset, and I might say "I am glad for you" (no need for proof)

IF someone on RF tells me "3: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you/all"
THEN I won't get upset, and I might say "Quite some pretentious knowledge" (no need for proof; he shares his opinion "I know....")

IF someone on RF tells me "4: Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you"
THEN I might act upset, and I might ask "Quite some pretentious claim" (needs proof*; he makes a clear claim AND imposes it on me)

IF someone on RF tells me "5: You go to Hell unless you accept Jesus"
THEN I might act upset, and I might say "You are rude, belittling and arrogant" (needs no proof; as I have self respect)
@stvdvRF

Interesting. I think that I'm upset before anyone does anything probably, which might point to some sort of inflammation going on and causing some subtle pain that makes me irritable or ready to pounce and defensive all the time. I can't let people just sit there smugly always, because if I care about them then I would want the best for them. Luckily, people appear so hideous or ugly to me that I don't really care about them at all or what I believe their future condition may be, or may even feel some pleasure in the belief that they are wrong, stubborn in their wrongness, and therefor doomed to a bad fate in my opinion. This becomes an issue though if I actually like or care about a person (which can develop very quickly) or if they are attractive or viable as some sort of human resource or even a potential sexual resource or someone stimulating who I'd like to have what I believe would be a better fate. Then I might not let the matter so easily rest if I can somehow convince them to adopt a view more compatible with my own beliefs.

So what that means in clarified summary is this:
-It is no one's fault probably for my temper, which is likely due to some sort of pain that has nothing to do with the annoyingness of people, who seem all the more irritating when a person is in some sort of even subtle physical pain or something going on, maybe some bad meals, not enough sleep, who knows.
-I have opinions and ideas that I would not believe in if I didn't think they were best, sure, and right.
-If people don't match up with my opinions, then they are in my opinion choosing something wrong, and anyone who chooses something wrong or that I think is idiotic, is an imbecile in my view.
-If people are gross seeming to me, or worthless, I might happily leave them alone in their ignorance to perish or use them as an example for badness and wrongness or whatever, the point being I don't care about them or their wellbeing or else I would work for them to be "saved" by what I think is the right opinion and so they can be closer to me and part of my group or like kin in the mind.
-If people are somehow valuable seeming to me, pleasurable in some way, and thus have worth, I might try to guide them to my way of thinking so that they might prosper and I might prosper through them, vicariously and by extending their likelihood of providing increased pleasure to me in whatever ways they might and do.
-I become more distraught and disappointed by the rejection of such people that provide me with pleasure and can provide me with more potentially by their resistance to becoming more like peers and kin by believing what I believe and agreeing with what I agree with, and seeing things the way I do, at least somewhat approximately or close enough, so that I can be comfortable with them and can feel free about my opinions and phrasing them as expressions of feelings they can relate with and agree with, and having generally pleasurable interactions without disagreements or differences which can make for unpleasantness or feelings of apartness and less pleasure.

So, since you mentioned Jesus for example, as soon as someone even says "Jesus" I might get a tinge of displeasure at the assumption that this person is very likely to be outside of my peer group or difficult to bring to my beliefs or whatever or be comfortable with.

 

[MikeF]

I agree. I was taught by a smart Master to never put God on the left side of the equation, implying that debating on God is pointless

So, I don't debate on this. I would like to know IF you feel a difference (see spoiler for my feeling about claims):
"1: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved"
"2: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for me"
"3: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you"
"4: Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you"
"5: You go to Hell unless you accept Jesus"

Spoiler: My feeling about claims

* Freedom of Speech means "I 'can't' be forced to speak", so I never "need to give proof, even if making a claim" (it has consequences)
* IF using "I believe, I feel, I know, I think" the person shares his opinion ('I'-message), so he makes not a claim
* IF imposing one's opinion on others, one must give sufficient proof IF one wants them to accept it

= = =

IF someone on RF tells me "1: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved"
THEN I won't get upset, and I might ask "for you, for me or for all?" (no need for proof)

IF someone on RF tells me "2: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for me"
THEN I won't get upset, and I might say "I am glad for you" (no need for proof)

IF someone on RF tells me "3: I know that Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you/all"
THEN I won't get upset, and I might say "Quite some pretentious knowledge" (no need for proof; he shares his opinion "I know....")

IF someone on RF tells me "4: Jesus is the only way to be saved, for you"
THEN I might act upset, and I might ask "Quite some pretentious claim" (needs proof*; he makes a clear claim AND imposes it on me)

IF someone on RF tells me "5: You go to Hell unless you accept Jesus"
THEN I might act upset, and I might say "You are rude, belittling and arrogant" (needs no proof; as I have self respect)
@stvdvRF

I get that folks can get exasperated with seemingly constant requests for proof. I would like to propose an extreme example to illustrate a point. What if I said that I believe that all white people are the spawn of Satan and that they are used by Satan to torment God's chosen people, who are all the non-white people. Do you think people in a non-white culture might be able to find evidence to support that claim, both now and throughout history? What might happen if such an idea where to spread and become widely held?

What we personally believe affects everyone and has consequences in the real world. Should we not explore and reconcile our different beliefs? All I would ask is that we not ignore conflicts and inconsistencies in what we believe, rather, to explore and resolve them.

(Cool trick with the hidden answers!)

 

[ecco]

I thought you meant this particular thread; I must have misread your reply

This thread is definitely included in my comment.

 

[stvdv]

Some threads are just plain dumb.

I thought you meant this particular thread; I must have misread your reply

This thread is definitely included in my comment.

Dumb people reply to dumb threads, thanks for letting us know that you are dumb

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I think the matter is quite simple, or can be made simple, without too much trickery or wordplay or whatever.

Whoever says that they believe some some intelligent or responsive power of any sort that can manipulate or influence their experience or reality believes in a God and is a Theist of some sort at least.

Whoever says that they believe in no intelligent or responsive power of any sort that can manipulate or influence their experience or reality, and wishes to state that there is no such thing as a God or gods is an Atheist.

If someone says that there "may be an intelligent and responsive power of some sort that can manipulate or influence their experience or reality, but they are not very confident or certain that such exists and are in doubt about it or don't think about it much but aren't very sure" they are known as Agnostics.

There are generally only believers in God or gods which are basically some kind of powerful intelligence which can influence things or has influenced things or whatever, which is typically worshipped and prayed to for its supposed ability to manipulate and influence experience and reality for a person (Theists), and there are those who deny there is such a thing or things (Atheists), and there are those who don't know if there is or isn't such and can not say with any sureness if there is or isn't such and aren't sure about it or confident about it one way or another (Agnostics).

I am a Theist. I can sort of mess around and play with words and pretend I'm an Atheist or Agnostic about things, but in reality, I very much believe in the existence of an intelligence behind my experience and reality which can be spoken to and replies through manipulating and influencing my reality or experience in my belief (or else I wouldn't even ask).

I am not an Atheist truly, because I believe in this powerful intelligence underlying and generating every instance of my experience or reality.

I am not an Agnostic, because I am entirely confident that such an intelligence is real and exists and is credited as whatever is doing such (like generating every instance of my experience and reality).

So this should not be too hard to establish for yourself (anyone reading this).

Do you believe in any sort of intelligent power that can manipulate your experience or reality, which you might also appeal to through prayer or otherwise worship and credit with influencing your experience? If yes, you are a Theist, and if no, you are an Atheist, and if you think such may exist but aren't really sure, you are an Agnostic (and very often an Agnostic may be considered a kind of not so strong or confident Atheist, but leaning more towards Atheism and non-practice, so typically not believing much in any God or gods or praying or worshipping anything. There are also people who say they believe in God but also don't really very often say any sort of prayer or make any appeal and also do not worship God or anything, but due to claiming that they believe in such an intelligence in some fashion which has power or otherwise a God or gods, they are still considered Theists).

Some people grow up theists in families of theists (like I did), and some leave theism, some leave and return, some become agnostic, some become atheists, some are born into agnostic families or conditions, others are born into atheist families and are brought up atheistic, and remain that way or change into something else, such as agnostic or theistic.

I think statistically, the theists tend to be the majority in the world and throughout history, and are also the ones with more psychological coping mechanisms which might make them think they have more ideas which are less depressing or disturbing.

The agnostics are the second most populous group most likely, who aren't certain or claim to be uncertain but open to possibilities and ideas.

The least populous group throughout history and today are still most likely the atheists, even though there are very large nations which are counted as atheistic, upon closer examination they are frequently agnostic or otherwise superstitious enough to be considered actually theistic.

Buddhists are also considered by some as non-theists, but are very much Theistic in their beliefs and practices quite often among the majority of people identifying as Buddhist and throughout the history of Buddhism, even if the influential intelligence they are praying to is not matching up to some Western standard for what God or a god might be, they very much are worshippers of God or gods for the most part, which go by different names and are identified perhaps as different things but are nonetheless intelligences with great power which are prayed to and believed to hear and respond powerfully (so are indeed qualified to be considered Gods or God-like entities).

Now if you pick Theist, there are some further choices:
Mono-Theist
Heno-Theist
Poly-Theist

A Mono-Theist believes there is only One (Mono) Intelligent Power which can influence reality.
A Heno-Theist believes in many gods or powers, but takes preference to One in particular among the many that they believe exist.
A Poly-Theist believes in many gods or powers, and might worship multiple.

A Monist might believe God and everything is One or there is only One thing and it is God too, all inclusive, or there is only One thing.
A Dualist might believe there are Two Powers, and these might also be in conflict with each other, like Good and Evil for example.
A Tri-Theist might believe there are Three Separate Powers, while a Trinatarian believes in a Trinity, Three that are actually One.

So for me, I am a Mono-Theist, pretty Monistic as I believe God is all that really exists and lives.

I'm not Dualistic too much, even though I believe that God is not the same as "Information" and that everything that God generates (such as experience) is "Information" or "Stuff" which God is Not, and that God is "non-information" so is literally Like Nothing, but besides this distinction, I don't believe in there being two powers of any sort, either together or in opposition.

I don't believe in Three either or any other number besides One when it comes to the Intelligence, and I don't believe God is really Three that are One, except that I do believe that God exists, has 1. The Power to Generate Reality, 2. The Drive to Use it., and 3. The Choice of how and when it is used and to do what and in what way (which is its intelligence or the beginning of the intelligence), but I don't think of these as really three distinguishable beings or forms combined into one or whatever exactly, so its not really strongly Trinitarian in nature.

Now, people who might consider themselves monotheists, may have a huge and wide variety of ideas and concepts which they consider the God or intelligent power or whatever, but they are all considered theists, and monotheists, unless they say believe in many gods, which would make them polytheistic, but if they say they only worship or pray to one over the others or in spite of the others, that would make them heno-theistic. If they say that God is very much separate from everything, they are unlikely to be Monists.

Most people are Monotheistic and Dualistic. There are a lot of Trinitarians (especially if you consider Hindu Monotheists who believe in the Trimurti of Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and the Christian Trinitarians who believe in The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit as One, though for the most part these people don't really keep such in mind totally and are basically Monotheists believing in a singular God or Ultimate Power, Bhagwan or God).

There are also the Pantheists (Those who believe either that Everything is a God, or every particular thing is a God which might also be like Animism in some forms, or that Everything in Totality is God, as the term is used variously to mean a few different things), and there are Pan-En-Theists who believe All is Within God or Encompassed by God (I am of the Pan-En-Theist view), and those who are Deistic (Deists believed that God is or was creator but is mainly or entirely remote now from creation, as if God is distant somewhere or only observing without intefering).

There are those who believe in an Immanent and influential and pervading and pervasive God that is ever-present and literally everywhere and influencing everything, and others who believe God is separate, remote, excluded, and apart. I am of those who believe in a present and pervasive God everywhere and behind everything generating and influencing all moments.

So, whoever is reading this, I would love to know which of these many categories you may feel that you best fit into, regardless of the particulars of your beliefs and concepts, as the generalities can qualify you into being considered at least some of these appropriately.

The Artis Magistra:
Theist
Monotheist
Monist
Panentheist
Immanent God
Occasionalist (God generating every moment of experience this instant, not reliant on anything else or other moments prior)
Hedonist (The highest value and goal is the longest lasting peace/security/pleasure/bliss/joy and the worst is the longest lasting pain/displeasure/suffering)

 

[rational experiences]

If a human who quotes as a thinker, a theist to think stories not about natural living conditions. The self human life and body, consciousness present.

Says to self I am a human and either a male or a female. For life to continue consciously for my owned self, human is to have sex. Real thinking ability, rational.

You quote I am breathing as the atmosphere supports it. I am healthy if I am healthy. I drink water as I need to. I eat food because I need to. Natural life living on a natural planet.

Without question and without answer. NATURAL, a rational self human answer.

Then you have the theist. Who lies. Absolute liar. No argument.

If a thinker rationally quotes to self, I seek information in stories about how creation came in to being. You would have to ask self, human and natural for what purpose and reason?

The answer is a fake unnatural design, want of .....that I personally as the thinker design as a human thinking. I then build it. I then own control of it. Then I falsely claim it artificial intelligence. As if it is conscious.

When I gave my own conscious human ability to idealise information to the gained design and then control of the machine.

I own/operate that machine. And whatever choices of materials that I interact the machine with are natural products.

Then I have to answer to my human family about how I arrived at controlling the gain of a natural product....when my life is lived in a non physical bio state that owns personal death.

So for a human to be living first to quote such ideals as when a human never existed, that conscious idea is when a human dies. For you cannot discuss when a human never existed, when you first quote the word, self presence as a human.

Why scientist in theist history are all liars. Humans first, natural first.

Ask a human why a human dies in an early age unnatural death?

The answer is artificial science caused machine histories. Satanism, why we taught that quoted teaching to be against natural God O the stone mass, natural evolution history having existed naturally.

So most humans then became a natural theist, to think science conditions as a human about science teaching history. Which is not natural conscious aware rational self human advice.

Why you argue, you argue as that theist, storytelling thinker.

So if you ask a human, is your human body self a spirit of God?

In science, no a spirit of God is the stone mass to form his artificial controlled designed machine and its controlled designer thinker human control of it.

Which is not any God, and it is irrational for a scientist to claim that it is, yet they do.

As a human bio life, to think, I am a human bio life. My closest living God the Earth theism history is the Holy Water oxygen micro biome mass, as the discussion what spirit of God history you quote is your own use. To be a human.

If science quotes 2 themes as a human thinking. Body O Earth planet mass is a mass body of fused products. Then the quote in science NOT A SPIRIT.

If science as a theist quotes, we live in the spirit of God, then the inference to spirit is a non fused mass body planet product. As a scientific human teaching, to theorise.

Now if you used/taught common human sense. 2 rational first living human lives our Mother and Father human being self. Owned a mutual and equal family human/life and presence human. Without any explanation of where did I previously exist or come from.

We however are a baby life/consciousness who inherit our human parent adult life self, who questions as a variation to that original consciousness, where did I come from as a theist.

Our original 2 parents were not scientist/theist.

Mutual human natural life....both went to sleep consciously in their death.

Did not own a scientific conscious baby to adult life appraisal at why they died as an adult human. We imposed that status.

We saw their bodies decompose and said as a science status, even a body after it dies still owns a status of spirit presence in the mass. Off gassing. We told that story to our own baby to adult life.

The heavenly gases as mass to our consciousness owns no beginning point or any end point.

If you claimed it began and ended then it is a science/machine controlled thesis machine reaction to end the presence of the natural spirit, a gas.

As a controller.

For a consciousness, the heavenly body sitting in cold space never began anywhere for the gases sitting in space are natural to the gases sitting in the space.

No beginning and also no end.

Humans however are self manifest owning no history of human one body self human explanation of relativity. Otherwise if you claim we are a body cell/chemical bio life less than what we live as....human, you would then attack our human life and make us mutate into a lower formed living human suffering bio life.

Why we always taught self human as a natural life that Satanism, science was our human life Destroyer. And not for any other reason did we quote that Satanism, was a human Destroyer....as compared to the God O planet/heavens spirit being our life.

God the first One mass planet stone body, belonged to science only, machine and a human to gain the spirits from the planet mass.

We lived owning life in the spirit heavens, not the first or origin in science One God thesis/theories. Which we said was relative to existence itself, including our heavenly spirits.

A very natural teaching in science about the spirit gases, having become present due to the O planet stone first one God existing. As a human told story.

That story first was told for natural life support.

The secondary thinking theorising story was done for male human and cult group mentality about how he could obtain the spirit or gases from out of the stone mass.

Which has no ownership or claim to the heavenly spatial history whatsoever.

Why the humans who told God O planet thesis/story was proven correct in science storytelling as compared to machine controlled reactions by the Destroyer of God (physical mass) mentality. To be A theist first was a human self description to quote, I, the Alpha self thinker can theorise.

Then after controlling the machine reaction to force Destroy the spirits (gases) which he did, I then said I was against natural God the O Earth history as a theist.

Why the A theist is the same as the theist....for they harmed what they quantified was first human A alpha natural ownership, to be first, spiritual and natural and origin to self, a human being a human.

And the spiritual self owns that quote, never did the A theist or theist use that quote.