What kind of atheist converts to a theist?

[Willamena]

Talk about yourself. That shoe is a very ill fit.

Christianity was built on the back of Stoicism, introducing a worth for man that was absent in earlier Pagan and Greek cosmic images.

The transcendent Christian God—a person, not the impersonal Stoic cosmos—created the world and set order in it solely out of an overflowing love. Christianity promised personal immortality to even the humblest of human beings and introduced an idea almost entirely absent in the ancient pagan world: the divine worth of every person as made “in the image and likeness of God." (Robert Royal, recapping Luc Perry from A Brief History of Thought).
​

Humanism, similiarly, was built on the back of Christianity, with the only difference in the picture being man taking the place of "what gives man worth." Man is the deciding factor in his destiny; man's ideals have value and are what will take him forward; man's science is what the world is built on.

 

[RedJamaX]

It's an issue of clarity. Once an atheist accepts the fact that the universe doesn't revolve around him, it opens the door to a whole new world of possibilities.

Where does this unfounded pretentious claim come from that atheists are selfish people??

Personally, I think it's the confusion of the word "materialist"... Yes, in the "scientific" sense, most atheists are materialists, in that we accept things to be true based on tangibility, and the knowledge of a particular thing acquired through the five senses.

"Materialist" in the sense of the individual who places a high value on having a big house, an expensive sports car and wearing brand name clothes is NOT the same thing. (I believe) This is clearly another example of deliberate manipulation by church leaders in order to sway the opinion of their followers how they see fit, because they know that most people think of this description when they use the word materialist... I equate this to the same way that in church they never tell you that Noah is 900 years old... they wait till you already believe the story to tell you that part, otherwise you'd call out ******** before the story even really started.

I am an atheist and I despise that type of materialism. While I do enjoy the more expensive things, So does every theist I know... in fact, the most materialistic person I know in that sense is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN! (let me guess... he's not a "real" Christian, is he )

I don't think you understand how atheists think... at least those who are atheists due to their rational approach to know as many true things as possible and to make decisions in their life based on that acquired knowledge.

Now that describes MOST atheists I have met, either directly or on the internet forums.. And not even one of those types of atheists think the world revolves around them. In fact, mostly they are humanists, rationalists, and secularists in their approach the society and their place in our world. And as such, they understand that the more positive actions by as many members of society as possible will provide a more productive environment which enables more people to achieve a more consistent state of happiness in their lives.

 

[RedJamaX]

Why isn't there another 'or' clause: 'or experience expanded consciousness'

I provided an explanation of "expanded consciousness" when I said " you acquire a deeper meaning of yourself and your own mind"... because that's all it provides (on a simplified level). You can facepalm all you want, but there have been many experiments done in monitoring brain activity while the test subjects would meditate, hallucinate, or engage in religious activity (including the "speaking in tongues" experience that many hold so dearly.) And we can clearly see that there is "more" activity than with our normal day-to-day experiences... aka, expanded consciousness... aka, nothing supernatural.

In fact there are some experiences, such as listening to music which evokes a deep emotional response, which trigger more brain activity in those same areas than when compared to meditation and religious experiences...

 

[LuisDantas]

Christianity was built on the back of Stoicism, introducing a worth for man that was absent in earlier Pagan and Greek cosmic images.

The transcendent Christian God—a person, not the impersonal Stoic cosmos—created the world and set order in it solely out of an overflowing love. Christianity promised personal immortality to even the humblest of human beings and introduced an idea almost entirely absent in the ancient pagan world: the divine worth of every person as made “in the image and likeness of God." (Robert Royal, recapping Luc Perry from A Brief History of Thought).
​

Humanism, similiarly, was built on the back of Christianity, with the only difference in the picture being man taking the place of "what gives man worth." Man is the deciding factor in his destiny; man's ideals have value and are what will take him forward; man's science is what the world is built on.

That may or may not be an accurate portrayal of Humanism.

It is not a fair representation of Atheists, though. Particularly when reduced to "thinking that the universe revolves around" us.

 

[Sir Doom]

In the interest of honesty, I felt compelled to point out that I am a theist who believes the universe revolves around himself.

EDIT: I suddenly felt compelled to point out that this post was very self-interested.

 

[Willamena]

That may or may not be an accurate portrayal of Humanism.

It is not a fair representation of Atheists, though. Particularly when reduced to "thinking that the universe revolves around" us.

Modern atheism and humanism began hand-in-hand, so one could easily be forgiven for thinking that that's so.

 

[LuisDantas]

Modern atheism and humanism began hand-in-hand, so one could easily be forgiven for thinking that that's so.

By you perhaps. Definitely not by me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why isn't there another 'or' clause: 'or experience expanded consciousness'

Is such expanded consciousness even detectable in an objective way?

 

[George-ananda]

I provided an explanation of "expanded consciousness" when I said " you acquire a deeper meaning of yourself and your own mind"... because that's all it provides (on a simplified level). You can facepalm all you want, but there have been many experiments done in monitoring brain activity while the test subjects would meditate, hallucinate, or engage in religious activity (including the "speaking in tongues" experience that many hold so dearly.) And we can clearly see that there is "more" activity than with our normal day-to-day experiences... aka, expanded consciousness... aka, nothing supernatural.

In fact there are some experiences, such as listening to music which evokes a deep emotional response, which trigger more brain activity in those same areas than when compared to meditation and religious experiences...

First off, I want to apologize for using the facepalm symbol. I know how I hate receiving them.

There are two major schools of thought on consciousness and brain activity. The western-materialist view that consciousness is the product of brain activity. The eastern (Hindu, New Age) view that brain activity is the product of consciousness. At this time there is no objective scientific proof which view is correct. Your statement that I was responding to said 'we know' based on research interpreted through the western-materialist assumptions.

 

[George-ananda]

Is such expanded consciousness even detectable in an objective way?

No, it's according to a theory that can't be studied in an objective way. Like 'brain activity causes consciousness' is a theory that can't be shown in an objective way.

We're dealing with theories and forming our personal opinions based on all the evidence and argumentation at our disposal and (hopefully) objectively analyzed.

 

[Windwalker]

So in regard to this, there are things we know due to research that's been conducted. Meditation access and trains the right side of the brain. That's the emotional AND the creative side. It's the side we use to explore our emotions and it's where our subconscious lives as well. (right side handles logic, reason, math, etc...).

True, but how wonderfully reductionist. I think to say science gives us knowledge of the "true" meaning of this, is an amusing leap of faith. Misplaced, but understandable in today's climate.

The more you meditate and or hallucinate (or both at the same time), the only thing you acquire a deeper meaning of is yourself and your own mind... your subconscious, your old memories that are repressed, or have been forgotten, your feelings and where they come from, where you thoughts come from, how they form and originate.

May I ask do you have experience in this personally? What you are saying is true, but only half of what is going on in the access of the subconscious.

These "experiences" may allow you to understand your self, which is not a bad thing at all, but if it leads you to "there is a god", then all you've discovered is that you believe there is a god... it does not provide ANY evidence that there is one... At the risk of being cliche' ... it's all in your head.

Yes, yes. I don't believe in the mythical versions of God. If you are really interested in hearing my thoughts about what it is we call God, what actually qualifies as that which mythical trappings are attached to, then we can have that conversation. But you'll need to leave behind any notions of the Sky Parent figure of your Sunday School ideas that I'm talking anything like that. If that's all you can see God as, then all I can suggest is maybe you do practice meditation and open, not just your repressed and submerged subconscious, but the transcendent, emergent potentials within you, the "high subtle" states in meditation, the archetypal, etc. If you have some personal frame of reference in these, it might make the discussion simpler.

And we know this due to scientific research done with brain activity and meditation, revelations, emotions and religious experiences.

And this to you means what? That's it's "all in your head"? I'm quite well familiar with it, and yet I find it entirely supportive of what I say. But what I say, is not speaking of proving a Sky Daddy mythical deity. It's more than that.

 

[Windwalker]

BTW, I wish to add that in relation to the OP, I was someone who was a theist, then became an atheist, and now embrace an understanding of what can be understood as God that is not a prerational understanding. I see atheism as a transitional stage between the prerational, mythic deity, to a transrational, transtheistic understanding of that which cultures and societies call God. It's all God, actually, just simply different faces our minds put upon it. Atheism is transitional in that that it, in the West I'm speaking, is really iconoclastic, smashing the idols of these 'graven images' of mythic-literal dogma. Why someone who embraced that, as I did, would then leave that behind is because it doesn't go far enough in the larger picture in the pursuit of a reasonable understanding of humanness. It's like the existentialists, just one step further.

So, I thought I'd just add this since I'm not sure I exactly weighed in on this.

 

[chinu]

IMO, the one who has seen God, isn't Theist. Because the one who has seen, doesn't need to believe.
But, For you the one who believe there's God, is Theist, I think.

For you, the one who doesn't believe there's God, is Atheist.
For me, among the people who hasn't seen God, Some are believers, Some are disbelievers (Depending on their point of views). But, as all are interested in seeing, all are Theists according to me. Their interest towards God makes them Theist in my eyes.

Thus, the issue is.. What kind of people (theists) can see God, rather than.. What kind of atheist converts to a theist.

 

[Windwalker]

IMO, the one who has seen God, isn't Theist. Because the one who has seen, doesn't need to believe.
But, For you the one who believe there's God, is Theist, I think.

For you, the one who doesn't believe there's God, is Atheist.
For me, among the people who hasn't seen God, Some are believers, Some are disbelievers (Depending on their point of views). But, as all are interested in seeing, all are Theists according to me. Their interest towards God makes them Theist in my eyes.

Thus, the issue is.. What kind of people (theists) can see God, rather than.. What kind of atheist converts to a theist.

Well, this is true. It really depends how someone defines God, in the positive or in the negative. To many theists, I'm an atheist. To many atheists, I'm a theist. To me, it's a moot question. Of course "That" is. How we speak about that is the only question.

 

[Athan]

Nope. It is just gross and unfounded prejudice, I am sorry to say.

You are gravely mistaken, I fear.

Who else can you rely on if not yourself? You have no hope of an afterlife; friends and family are full of frailties, so disappointment lurks around every corner. You can't believe anything anyone says unless they can prove it through scientific method, so all of a sudden, your entire universe is the sum of what you know, personally. In a sense, you are your own master of the universe.

 

[LuisDantas]

Who else can you rely on if not yourself?

You are taking a few premises for granted here, and I will not necessarily share them all, so I truly don't know how much of that question even makes sense for me.

That said, generally speaking the answer would be that I rely on other people as I see fit or need, and on certain phylosophical stances that I have adopted.

Not sure how significant that is, though.

You have no hope of an afterlife;

Nor desire for one, indeed.

friends and family are full of frailties, so disappointment lurks around every corner.

As does the most joyful of gifts.

You can't believe anything anyone says unless they can prove it through scientific method,

Uh? The scientific method is for sciences. I am not a living avatar of science or anything similar to that to exist only in function of the scientific method. I am a human being.

so all of a sudden, your entire universe is the sum of what you know, personally. In a sense, you are your own master of the universe.

That is a caricature, and it is dangerous to extrapolate to me from it.

 

[Koldo]

Who else can you rely on if not yourself? You have no hope of an afterlife; friends and family are full of frailties, so disappointment lurks around every corner. You can't believe anything anyone says unless they can prove it through scientific method, so all of a sudden, your entire universe is the sum of what you know, personally. In a sense, you are your own master of the universe.

It is not a good idea to entertain the thought that atheists think of themselves as gods.
Nor is it reasonable to assume that all of your needs, such as the existence of a god, are present in all other human beings.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Atheism is transitional in that that it, in the West I'm speaking, is really iconoclastic, smashing the idols of these 'graven images' of mythic-literal dogma.

I think the West is heavily populated with people who don't believe in God (atheists) yet don't care a thing about attacking traditional religion.

Actually I think there are many atheists running churches and seminaries.

 

[ChristineES]

I think the West is heavily populated with people who don't believe in God (atheists) yet don't care a thing about attacking traditional religion.

Actually I think there are many atheists running churches and seminaries.

I've known a lot of people who did not follow any religion yet didn't really mind hearing about it.

 

[nash8]

I've known a lot of people who did not follow any religion yet didn't really mind hearing about it.

Fa sho!!!!