Why Debate the Existence of God with Non-believers?

[Ouroboros]

Oh yes. I like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's use of the term the Omega Point, to describe the focal point that draws things to itself. Tie this with Paul Tillich's "Ground of Being" (God), it is the Source that gives rise to life, and to which all life is draw in return. But not toward disillusion, to death, but to Realization. In the fullness of being through becoming. All creation reaches for that Unity, and evolution is the stream through which life emerges into awareness of the Self and knowledge of Truth.

Like a magnet.

Explains the arrow of time. God is the future point drawing it all to a final "cause" rather than first cause.

 

[HeatherAnn]

Personally, I feel now that I'm an atheist and theist at the same time. It's a state of is and isn't.

I'm beginning to see paradox in almost everything!

This is the greatest paradox: the emotions cannot be trusted, yet it is they that tell us the greatest truths. -Don Herold

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Personally, I feel now that I'm an atheist and theist at the same time. It's a state of is and isn't.

Can one be a greedyguy and a generousguy at the same time? I'd say certainly so.

So one can be a godbelieving guy and an nongodbelieving guy at once.

I'm neither a theist nor an atheist, and I'm both.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm beginning to see paradox in almost everything!

Exactly.

The only unifying and objective truth might be that there are no unifying and objective truth.

This is the greatest paradox: the emotions cannot be trusted, yet it is they that tell us the greatest truths. -Don Herold

Good quote.

Logic is many times overrated.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm neither a theist nor an atheist, and I'm both.

You, me both.

Life is complex. Simple questions can't be answered in simple terms. Simple questions only assume that there's a simple answer, when in reality things are very complex.

 

[Windwalker]

One aspect I've been wondering about is the idea of a personal God.
In one way, I see God as impersonal - kindof like "truth happens" - whether we believe in it or not... If you keep running off cliffs, you'll keep getting hurt, etc. (Understanding action/consequence takes time though.)
Yet, in another way, as far as personally relating, I see God/truth as VERY personal... so personal that it's like describing love or beauty... my version will be REAL to me (have real influence - in inspiring me etc.) but it may likely be different for you.
It doesn't mean I'm right or you're right... we're both right, if it helps motivate us in healthy ways.
What do you think?

I was actually hoping to get to this sort of discussion. It's the three faces of Spirit discussion. I think this will be helpful to you.

We experience God, or Spirit the same way we experience anything in 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person perspectives, or relationships. When we look at Spirit in 3rd person, we think in terms of a theistic God, or the web of life, the universe, the cosmos. We look at Spirit as object - something outside ourselves. When we relate to Spirit in 2nd person, it is as the "Other". It is a personal relationship, an "I-Thou" relationship, where you look at God and God looks at you, and you look at you in relation to God. In this mode, it is very personal. In 1st person perspective, Spirit is realized in yourself, and sees out of your eyes as Spirit. It is the "I AM'ness" of our being.

I believe all 3 perspectives are important spiritually for us, as this is how we live and grown through in our person in everything we experience in life. Why should this not be so in spiritual development?

In my meditation practices, I very much integrate all 3 perspectives. It is very 2nd person devotional for me, where I bow low in an immediate felt presence of Spirit. Ego is laid bare and surrendered. But it is towards a 1st person realization, where at a certain point, "heaven dissolves" as I call it, and that which was above, that which surrounded and enveloped, moves within and you open your eyes as that within. There is no longer God above, but is simply ones own Identity. 3rd person is to see that divine radiant in all objects, every bird song, each blade of grass moving in the wind, the breeze, the sunlight, the tree, every person, every face, every animal. It is "impersonal" in the sense that it is all identities, and itself not a single face.

For more on the 3 faces of Spirit, read this: +kenwilber.com - blog

BTW, the heaven dissolves reference reminded me a this quote from a Sufi mystic:

“There are lights which ascend and lights which descend. The ascending lights are the lights of the heart; the descending lights are those of the Throne. The false self is the veil between the Throne and the heart. When this veil is torn, and a door opens in the heart, like springs towards like. Light ascends toward light and light descends upon light, and it is ‘light upon light’.

When each time the heart sighs for the throne the throne sighs for the heart, so they come to meet. Each time a light ascends from you, a light descends toward you. If their energies are equal, then they meet halfway. But when the substance of light has grown in you, then this makes up a whole in relation to what is in the same nature in Heaven. Then, it is the substance of light in Heaven that longs for you, and is drawn to your light, and it descends toward you. This is the secret of the mystical journey.”

~9th Century Sufi mystic, Najim al-Din Hubra
​

 

[Robert.Evans]

Why debate the existence of God with non-believers?

I think you'll find they debate it with us...I can't recall an instance where we went looking for them. it seems to be for them some kind of therapy

 

[steeltoes]

I think you'll find they debate it with us...I can't recall an instance where we went looking for them. it seems to be for them some kind of therapy

I think debaters look for each other.

 

[HeatherAnn]

I was actually hoping to get to this sort of discussion. It's the three faces of Spirit discussion. I think this will be helpful to you.

We experience God, or Spirit the same way we experience anything in 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person perspectives, or relationships. When we look at Spirit in 3rd person, we think in terms of a theistic God, or the web of life, the universe, the cosmos. We look at Spirit as object - something outside ourselves. When we relate to Spirit in 2nd person, it is as the "Other". It is a personal relationship, an "I-Thou" relationship, where you look at God and God looks at you, and you look at you in relation to God. In this mode, it is very personal. In 1st person perspective, Spirit is realized in yourself, and sees out of your eyes as Spirit. It is the "I AM'ness" of our being.

I believe all 3 perspectives are important spiritually for us, as this is how we live and grown through in our person in everything we experience in life. Why should this not be so in spiritual development?

In my meditation practices, I very much integrate all 3 perspectives. It is very 2nd person devotional for me, where I bow low in an immediate felt presence of Spirit. Ego is laid bare and surrendered. But it is towards a 1st person realization, where at a certain point, "heaven dissolves" as I call it, and that which was above, that which surrounded and enveloped, moves within and you open your eyes as that within. There is no longer God above, but is simply ones own Identity. 3rd person is to see that divine radiant in all objects, every bird song, each blade of grass moving in the wind, the breeze, the sunlight, the tree, every person, every face, every animal. It is "impersonal" in the sense that it is all identities, and itself not a single face.

Thanks, Windwalker. Maybe that's God - all 3 perspectives...
1st person: I AM THAT I AM... the kingdom of God is within you.
2nd person: Dear God/Dear Heavenly Father and Mother...
3rd person: As I have loved you, love one another.

I don't know if it's just me, but I have a hard time thinking in 3 different directions all of the time.
So, maybe at times, it is best to focus on one, to deeply resonate, but in the back of my mind, there is the whole awareness.

 

[Magic Man]

My reason for believing comes from objective study and consideration (starting with a study of the so-called paranormal) but these are the subjective advantages I've found.

I'm glad you've found so many benefits to believing in the things you do, but a couple things:

1) I see you mention beliefs in reincarnation and such, but do you believe in a theistic god? Because you could believe in some kind of afterlife and still be an atheist.

2) Your beliefs didn't come from objective study and consideration.

 

[Magic Man]

Personally, I feel now that I'm an atheist and theist at the same time. It's a state of is and isn't.

Unless you're using a non-standard definition of those terms, your claim is impossible. Either you believe a god exists or you don't. You can't do both at the same time.

 

[Ouroboros]

Unless you're using a non-standard definition of those terms, your claim is impossible. Either you believe a god exists or you don't. You can't do both at the same time.

There is no clear standard on either one of the terms. That's the problem.

Each and every person has a different view on what a "god" is. And there are many definitions in use, and many different definitions in the past.

I'm an atheist regarding many of the standard definitions of god, but theist in regards to other definitions. See Spinoza for some ideas.

 

[Magic Man]

There is no clear standard on either one of the terms. That's the problem.

Each and every person has a different view on what a "god" is. And there are many definitions in use, and many different definitions in the past.

I'm an atheist regarding many of the standard definitions of god, but theist in regards to other definitions. See Spinoza for some ideas.

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. God in this context is a theistic god like Yahweh/Allah. People do use the term "God" to mean many other things, but it's not useful to consider them in this context. When describing someone as an atheist, it means they don't believe in a personal theistic god.

So, if you believe in that type of god, you're a theist. If not, you're an atheist.

 

[Nymphs]

To plant seeds of doubt that may later sprout.

That was the other way around for me.

I was a theist, now I'm a non-theist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was a theist, now I'm a non-theist.

While I try to do a bit of each each and every day.

 

[Ouroboros]

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. God in this context is a theistic god like Yahweh/Allah. People do use the term "God" to mean many other things, but it's not useful to consider them in this context. When describing someone as an atheist, it means they don't believe in a personal theistic god.

So, if you believe in that type of god, you're a theist. If not, you're an atheist.

Well, I never asked you to understand.

 

[Desert Snake]

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. God in this context is a theistic god like Yahweh/Allah. People do use the term "God" to mean many other things, but it's not useful to consider them in this context. When describing someone as an atheist, it means they don't believe in a personal theistic god.

So, if you believe in that type of god, you're a theist. If not, you're an atheist.

Dude, that's totally false. Btw, there are different viewpoints of deity even in the same religions.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, I never asked you to understand.

No, you didn't, but I do. You're either an atheist or a theist. You can't be both or neither at the same time, for the reasons I provided.

Dude, that's totally false. Btw, there are different viewpoints of deity even in the same religions.

Of course there are different viewpoints of deity even in the same religion, but that doesn't counter anything I said. You're welcome to make an argument for why you think it's false.

 

[Nakosis]

Why debate the existence of God with non-believers?

When/if God shows up, the non-believer might benefit from the mistakes made by the believers.

 

[Desert Snake]

Of course there are different viewpoints of deity even in the same religion, but that doesn't counter anything I said. You're welcome to make an argument for why you think it's false.

May be I misunderstood your comment. I'm 'panentheistic', do you consider that theist?