Is atheism a sign of intellectual weakness?

[amadeus]

I recently read an argument that atheists are fools, not for disbelieving in God, but for believing too much in themselves. The writer argues that what makes theists superior to atheists is not their faith, but in fact their doubt. I can't speak for every theist, but it's certainly my case that my faith in God goes hand in hand with a lot of skepticism. My belief in God is accompanied by the dreadful suspicion that I may, after all, be deluding myself. I think the same is true of most, perhaps all theists.

Atheism, on the contrary, seems a close-minded position. The atheist sees himself as the master of a universe in which he is the sole bearer of truth. In the atheist's mind there is no doubt, no sense of insecurity, no possibility that he might be wrong without realizing it. Unlike most people, the atheist is not bothered by the fact that his feeling of certainty is not shared by the absolute majority of people around him; in fact he often takes pride in that. The atheist believes people fool themselves too easily, but somehow believes he can't possibly be also a victim of the same weakness. When it comes to cosmic matters, both theists and atheists are ignorant, but the theist has the advantage of making his ignorance a central fact in his philosophy, while the atheist chooses to disregard it.

These ideas are not mine, it's just something I read that makes some sense.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by amadeus
Atheism, on the contrary, seems a close-minded position. The atheist sees himself as the master of a universe in which he is the sole bearer of truth. In the atheist's mind there is no doubt, no sense of insecurity, no possibility that he might be wrong without realizing it. Unlike most people, the atheist is not bothered by the fact that his feeling of certainty is not shared by the absolute majority of people around him; in fact he often takes pride in that. The atheist believes people fool themselves too easily, but somehow believes he can't possibly be also a victim of the same weakness. When it comes to cosmic matters, both theists and atheists are ignorant, but the theist has the advantage of making his ignorance a central fact in his philosophy, while the atheist chooses to disregard it. Actually this can be applied to just about anyone who takes excessive pride in the pursuit of knowledge, even those -- or, especially those -- who seek knowledge for the sake of achieving "special status" in a reiligous hierachy. These can become some of your worst offenders as well. [;)]

[radagast]

Excellent point Iacchus,

We need to check with Dark Wing, but I think the two of us agreeing is one of the signs of the apocalypse mentioned in Revelations.
[:)]


Amadeus,
The point of view you mentioned is seriously myopic. There are vast amounts of things I don't know. I don't know that there is no god, I simply don't see enough justification for me to accept that one does exist. This lack of belief is what makes me an atheist. There is no pride or close mindedness that is required. I discuss religion (and I do mean discuss, not argue) with many people, including Mormons, Seventh day adventists, and Jehovah's witnesses that come to the front door. Unlike many atheists, I can see value (for the believers) in their having their beliefs. That doesn't mean I accept that they are correct.

The same argument, 'that someone is prideful enough to decide to believe in the god Jehovah, when it is obvious that Thor is the only true god' is completely analogous, just as valid, and just as flawed. It's a strawman argument flaw, assuming many sets of motivations and beliefs that may or may not exist.

Atheists, in the west, have grown up in a theistic society. Most went thru a great deal of soul searching, research, and thinking before coming to the state they are in. Most atheists are not 'strong atheists' (i.e. believing that there is no god), they just do not have a belief in a god. Faced with strong evidence, they would likely change their minds. I don't think I've met but a couple of atheists that were as certain of their views as you mention. On the other hand, I have met hoards of theists that were dead certain that their views were correct.

[Zero]

Originally posted by amadeus
I recently read an argument that atheists are fools, not for disbelieving in God, but for believing too much in themselves. The writer argues that what makes theists superior to atheists is not their faith, but in fact their doubt. I can't speak for every theist, but it's certainly my case that my faith in God goes hand in hand with a lot of skepticism. My belief in God is accompanied by the dreadful suspicion that I may, after all, be deluding myself. I think the same is true of most, perhaps all theists.

Atheism, on the contrary, seems a close-minded position. The atheist sees himself as the master of a universe in which he is the sole bearer of truth. In the atheist's mind there is no doubt, no sense of insecurity, no possibility that he might be wrong without realizing it. Unlike most people, the atheist is not bothered by the fact that his feeling of certainty is not shared by the absolute majority of people around him; in fact he often takes pride in that. The atheist believes people fool themselves too easily, but somehow believes he can't possibly be also a victim of the same weakness. When it comes to cosmic matters, both theists and atheists are ignorant, but the theist has the advantage of making his ignorance a central fact in his philosophy, while the atheist chooses to disregard it.

These ideas are not mine, it's just something I read that makes some sense. Of course those ideas are not yours. And, unfortunately, the exact same thing has been posted with the roles reversed, to support atheists instead of theists.

Let me tell you, I've never met an atheist who thought he was master of the universe...except me when I was 5 and was watching He-Man cartoons!

[radagast]

by AmadeusWhen it comes to cosmic matters, both theists and atheists are ignorant, but the theist has the advantage of making his ignorance a central fact in his philosophy, while the atheist chooses to disregard it.

But this seems to indict the theist, doesn't it? Both do not know, yet the theist say's they do. It is the atheist that says they don't.

Isn't having ignorance as a central fact of a philosophy like constructing a building on sand?

Many theists I've known have claimed just the opposite, that they had all the answers - very conveniently written up in the bible.

[quantum]

Without reading a word of your post, I will simply answer the question poised in your title... I do not personally believe that atheism is a sign of intellectual weakness, but rather the complete opposite.

Atheists go against society to "protest" religion in the name of science! This is something that has only been possible in recent years without the threat of imprisonment for heresy! I believe that anybody who protests what was once an axiom of life is indeed somebody intelligent enough to break the mold and state how they really feel.

[radagast]

Originally posted by quantum
Atheists go against society to "protest" religion in the name of science!

Atheism is merely the absence of belief in god. All the rest you mention may be attributes of many atheists, but it is in error to attribute them to atheists. The fact that many Buddhists and Taoists are atheist would argue against the idea the atheism 'protests' religion.

[Royce]

A a theist and former agnostic atheist I don't see any connection between intelligence and atheism. I would rather say that it is a matter of personal experience and, not meaning it insultingly at all, maturity. People who believe in God and creation because that is what they have been taught all their life are no better or worse intellectually or any other way than people who have taught the same thing all their lifes and can not or have not accepted it. Who have actually thought about it and had enough conviction to say I don't believe this is true.
I say that they have yet to experience the life changing or at least mind changing event that some of us theist have. I say that it is a lack of maturity because once young people throw away the teachings of their elders and set out on their own that cling to materialism for support, to take the place of that which they threw away in sometimes in rebellion. Later as they get older they find their own belifs that they are comfortable with and become more accepting of other ideas, beliefs and thoughts. They may in later middle age life come to experience or find their God and will be where I am now.

Either way the beginning statement of this thread is just as insulting and invalid as any other such proclamation regardless of which side it came from. It is nonsence.

[Zero]

Wow, it is nice to see that we all agree on something for a change!

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Royce

Either way the beginning statement of this thread is just as insulting and invalid as any other such proclamation regardless of which side it came from. It is nonsence.
Since when a sentence which ends in a question mark is a statement? I just read something on a book and thought of asking what people thought of it. I have not given my own opinion other than saying it makes some sense. Stress on "some"!

Besides, even if it were an attack on atheism, why is it more insulting than the constant attacks on theists by atheists? Why is it OK to argue that theism comes from ignorance but not the other way around? Isn't there some kind of double standard here?

[radagast]

Since when a sentence which ends in a question mark is a statement?
Amadeus,
If I posted "Amadeus, are you a moron?", that would be widely accepted as an insult. This is exactly how the atheist and some of the theists here read your title, so don't come off as some innocent saying it was only a question.

[radagast]

Originally posted by amadeus
Besides, even if it were an attack on atheism, why is it more insulting than the constant attacks on theists by atheists? Why is it OK to argue that theism comes from ignorance but not the other way around? Isn't there some kind of double standard here?

Ahh, it's good to know that two wrongs still make a right.

[amadeus]

Originally posted by radagast
Ahh, it's good to know that two wrongs still make a right.
So how many wrongs are allowed? Just one?

[Zantra]

And the gargutuan battle continues. That initial post and title are simply a one sided view to a 2 pronged issue. And both sides are equally guilty of the same offense. I agree that atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god without undeniable proof. To say we are blind for not accepting that which cannot be put into physical terms is no better than saying that theists are fools for believing in something without proof. This isn't a valid argument, simply a speech to support theism which doesn't present all the facts, just a one sided view. Personally my stance is not one of disbelief and confidence in the lack of a god, it's skepticism from lack of acceptable evidence(acceptable of course being a subjective term).

[megashawn]

I recently read an argument that atheists are fools, not for disbelieving in God, but for believing too much in themselves. The writer argues that what makes theists superior to atheists is not their faith, but in fact their doubt.

Superior in what aspect? The fact that they believe? What exactly is a theist better at, then an atheist? I work with a bunch of theists, and I'm one of the best, smartest one here, rivaled only by a fellow atheist. Of course I believe in myself. My life is centered around me. When all else fails, everything is in the gutter, the only person I know I can always rely on, is me. I don't wait for some imaginary being to rescue me. I get it done.

And also, since when have theists been full of doubts? If this is true, what exactly is "Creation science"? Ya, thats good, a theist is so full of doubt, yet believes he knows who created the universe and how.

My belief in God is accompanied by the dreadful suspicion that I may, after all, be deluding myself. I think the same is true of most, perhaps all theists.

Has nobody been able to answer the "How do you tell which religion is the right one?" for you either? Seems like that kind of doubt is not good for a believer.

Atheism, on the contrary, seems a close-minded position. The atheist sees himself as the master of a universe in which he is the sole bearer of truth.

Haha, you read this somewhere? Links?? Anyhow, where do you get off thinking atheism is a closed minded position? Take this example for instance.

Zeus returns to earth after being on vacation on yeranus. He reveals himself to the world and informs us that he is back in charge. I, being an atheist who lacked any thourough evidence supporting a god, now possesses such and I do as Zeus asks. The average believer will deny it tooth and nail. Even if he could hurl lighting bolts and such.

You see what I mean? People who have such strong beliefs are so shutdown to any other possibility, that even if there beliefs were proven beyond doubt to be completely wrong, they would still hold them.

No, I don't think that is a valid stance on atheism. You must remember that the difference between a true atheist, and the ones your preacher warns you about are quite different.

Unlike most people, the atheist is not bothered by the fact that his feeling of certainty is not shared by the absolute majority of people around him; in fact he often takes pride in that.

Feeling of certainty??? What the hell is that? The only thing I'm certain about, is I'm going to work tommorow. And thats if nothing crazy happens. I hold nothing as certain, except that which is validated consistantly. Again, wrong.

When it comes to cosmic matters, both theists and atheists are ignorant, but the theist has the advantage of making his ignorance a central fact in his philosophy, while the atheist chooses to disregard it.

I agree up to the first comma, after that its pure rubbish. Your telling me it is an advantage you base your entire belief system, on ignorance? Especially when that belief system offers an explanation of everything. I said it somewhere else; any decision made, based on ignorance, is usually wrong.

Of course, you can try to prove it right. Good luck.

[FZ+]

Besides, even if it were an attack on atheism, why is it more insulting than the constant attacks on theists by atheists?
Which attacks on theist by atheists? Read through them again, and let not the clouds of factionalism cloud your way. The attacks on theism by atheists are targetted specifically at:

(1) Theist claims of absolute truth. This hence does not apply at all to skeptical belief.
(2) Theist claims of absolute morality. This also does not apply to pragmatic theists, but still to the closed minded ones.
(3) Specific theist claims by specific religions eg. Noah's ark etc. These represent when spiritualism attempts to be materialist reality, and thus can be rebutted by known facts and experimentation.
(4) Theist claims of exclusivity, which is hypocrisy and can be rebutted.

If there are any that do not follow these, then I agree, they are foolish. No one has said all theists are stupid, I believe.

[Fliption]

This thread has turned into Theist versus atheists and that's not only a waste of time but a shame. A few people here were on the right track earlier I think by suggesting that the original post paints too broad a brush. While I think it has some truth to it, it is too broad and is probably using inaccurate terms. i.e. I don't think "atheist" is the right word(maybe anti-theist is better?). The target of this quote was obviously people who claim to know that there is no god. So I would say that all atheists who claim to know nothing for certain can just settle down because it isn't directed at you [:)].

At the same time though I see the same big paint brush being used on the other side. I must disagree with some of the people who have posted. There definitely have been people who posts in these forums who have lumped all theists into a big bucket that they consider to be foolish and self delusional. There's no denying that this has happened. But just like the original post, there is some truth in it but it just doesn't apply to everyone. For example, there definitely are people who may lean toward a theistic view who would also change their mind quickly if Zeus returned and took over. But these aren't the people the opponents like to talk about. Generally they only talk about uneducated bible thumpers.

All of this is the reason I hate taking on labels like atheist and theist. Because eventually you end up getting categorized and having to defend a label and everyone else in it and you too easily forget that everyone has a unique opinion.

[hypnagogue]

Just to help put things in perspective...

Definitions from dictionary.com:

believe
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.

theist
One who believes in the existence of a God; especially, one who believes in a personal God.

atheist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

agnostic
1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

If you believe that God exists, you are a theist. If you believe there is no God, you are an atheist. If you believe that we cannot be certain about the existence of God, or if you are skeptical to some degree about the existence of God, you are an agnostic.

It sounds to me that a lot of people have been describing themselves as atheists in this thread, while agnosticism better characterizes their ensuing descriptions and explanations of their beliefs. So they are ultimately arguing the case for agnosticism vs. the case for theism. Similarly, the opening post of this thread seemed to be arguing the case for agnosticism vs. the case for atheism.

Agnosticism can have varying degrees of skepticism (hence terms like agnostic theist and agnostic atheist), but the central component behind agnosticism is skepticism of some kind. You can only properly call yourself a theist or an atheist if you are sure that God does or does not exist.

Personally, I believe the opening post was to some extent justified as to its attack on atheists, just as I believe the ensuing attacks on theists were justified. I think it is plainly evident that we cannot be sure whether a God exists or does not exist, so anyone who professes to have the answer is fooling themselves. The misunderstanding in this thread is that any given person is characterizing their position as agnostic while characterizing the position of the opposite party as either theistic or atheistic. If we are all ultimately skeptical to some degree, what is there to argue about?

[CJames]

"atheist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

The key here is the "disbelieves or denies" part of the definition, which while taken from dictionary dot com, is a little innacurate. The people that write the dictionary just don't have the time to research every word completely and entirely. A true athiest simply lacks belief in God/gods. They don't "deny" God/gods and the word "disbelieves" has a more negative connotation than "lack's belief".

"agnostic
1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."

Most of the people calling themselves athiest here are doing so because they don't necessarily agree about the "impossible to know" part of the definition. Afterall, if I died and saw God, which I won't deny is possible, I would have been wrong to call myself agnostic. Also, it's important to remember that agnostic is not necessarily solo. You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic athiest. I simply call myself athiest because I don't believe in God, but haven't decided for myself it's impossible to prove. I think it's foolish to say that about anything you aren't completey positive of.

[Hurkyl]

But it does accurately reflect the common usage of the term atheist, whether or not it's the "right" meaning.


IMHO it's somewhat silly to insist the meaning of "atheist" be expanded to one skeptical of gods, since "agnostic" is already commonly used to mean one skeptical of gods, and every definition of agnostic I have seen has included the skeptical entry (often this is the only entry)... pretty much the only people who use "atheist" to refer to someone lacking belief in gods without actually denying their existance are people lacking belief in gods without actually denying their existance that want to call themselves "atheists" instead of "agnostics".

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
But it does accurately reflect the common usage of the term atheist, whether or not it's the "right" meaning.


IMHO it's somewhat silly to insist the meaning of "atheist" be expanded to one skeptical of gods, since "agnostic" is already commonly used to mean one skeptical of gods, and every definition of agnostic I have seen has included the skeptical entry (often this is the only entry)... pretty much the only people who use "atheist" to refer to someone lacking belief in gods without actually denying their existance are people lacking belief in gods without actually denying their existance that want to call themselves "atheists" instead of "agnostics". Well, shall I decide to redefine 'theist' as 'people with idiotic beliefs who smell funny and have lousy dental hygiene'?

Pretty much the only people who define atheism as 'disbelief' are people who aren't atheists.

[Royce]

Well then I decide to redifine atheist as one with terminal B.O., brain rot and diarrhea of the mouth.
Reguardless of which "side" your on or where your belifs fall on the continum the original statement refered to and posted in this thread is nonscense and uncalled for as is any such statement. It shows intolerence for others beliefs, bias, bigotry and provincialism. Though statements such as this has been thrown be both side here and everywhere else by nearly everyone, it is meaningless nonscense and should be given the same attention and respect as one gives passing of gas from the other end which is more thought out and intelligent.

[amadeus]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Personally, I believe the opening post was to some extent justified as to its attack on atheists, just as I believe the ensuing attacks on theists were justified. I think it is plainly evident that we cannot be sure whether a God exists or does not exist, so anyone who professes to have the answer is fooling themselves. The misunderstanding in this thread is that any given person is characterizing their position as agnostic while characterizing the position of the opposite party as either theistic or atheistic.
I'm glad to see at least one person understood the spirit of the initial post. It's really hard to talk about those issues as each person has a different interpretation of what words mean. My apologies to the people who felt offended as I never intended to insult or diminish any open-minded worldview.
If we are all ultimately skeptical to some degree, what is there to argue about?
There's something very important we must argue about: our use of language. The freedom each of us has to interpret words as we see fit must be reconciled with our need to communicate.

I don't know what the words "theist" and "atheist" mean for each person I talk to, I only know what they mean to me. To some people "atheist" means the most despicable person you can imagine, to some others "atheist" means an intellectually advanced individual. To some people "theist" means a person who's open to the possibility that life is full of meaning and purpose, to some others it means a person who relies on myth at the expense of logic and reason. How can anyone make sense of those concepts?

There are many people who are convinced that the material reality is all there is, who are convinced that life is the result of a cosmic accident and has no meaning or purpose. I personally call those people "atheists", but I'd be glad to learn if there's a better word to describe them.

Thanks for all the input BTW.

[Royce]

I have notice during a life long observation of human behavior, mine as well as others, that if we have well thought out our beliefs and why we believe as we do, if we are comfortable, secure and confident in our beliefs, we can and some of us do discuss them intelligently an intellectually and tolerate without qualm the views, statements, beliefs and disagreements of others.

If, however, we are not secure and comfortable, if our beliefs are learned or proscribed and accepted without thought, we then become defensive and lash out unreasonably at any suggestion of disagreement or different view point.

We cling tenaciously to our fragile support system for emotional and mental survival and fear any and all real or imagined attacks on our system. If we find ourselves in such a defensive posture, we should immediately examine that posture and find out where the uncertainty lies, rethink our position and reasons for it until we can reach a conclusion that we are comfortable and confident with. Such a conclusion can be; "I don't know and cannot know." Only the most insecure person would find such a conclusion weak and vunerable.

Other than in jest with someone equally secure and confident in their beliefs, name calling and diparaging remarks about anothers beliefs are uncalled for and unkind if not down right mean. All believe systems have emotional content. Our beliefs are part of what and who we are. We care and have feelings about what we believe or we would not believe. To kick one who is weak and vunerable is being a bully and mean. Such an attack is not just aimed at our beliefs but personal and aimed at our self-image. It does nothing to raise ones stature but just the opposite.

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Royce
I have notice during a life long observation of human behavior, mine as well as others, that if we have well thought out our beliefs and why we believe as we do, if we are comfortable, secure and confident in our beliefs, we can and some of us do discuss them intelligently an intellectually and tolerate without qualm the views, statements, beliefs and disagreements of others.
Wise words, Royce.

I think the best philosophical position one can possibly have is to transcend the theistic debate. Not to become an agnostic, for even agnosticism is a way to participate in the debate. If you forget your personal opinions and stick to what you really know for certain, then the truth starts slowly seeping into your consciousness. I suppose that's the phenomenon Buddhists call enlightenment - a complete lack of care about cosmic matters.

I might be wrong about all that but then again... who cares?

[Royce]

No your not wrong. You are at least in part right. Once one takes one step he has set upon his journey.

This is why I think it crucial to keep as open a ming as possible without ever loosing sight of where you are, where your going and why.

As Candise Bergen, in her TV show, said; "Always remember, no matter where you go in life, there you are." I love it. It's become one of my favorite quotes because it was so in character and on the face of it it sounds so stupid until you look deeper and find the profundity of it. Very Zen. I think we all too often loose sight of where we are and how and why we got here.

[radagast]

Originally posted by amadeus
So how many wrongs are allowed? Just one?

Uhh, None... That was the point.

You have present material that paints me, and a number of others with a brush that doesn't apply. If you can find where I've made such attacks then I'd be happy to publically apologize and retire.

I have never stated that theists were wrong. I have presented positions that disagreed with them, and presented arguments to support that my opinions were rationally justifible.

p.s. Agnostics aren't people that haven't decided if god exists or not, but those accepting the philosophical position that it (god's existence) is unknowable. A person can be an agnostic and an atheist.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by amadeus
I recently read an argument that atheists are fools, not for disbelieving in God, but for believing too much in themselves. The writer argues that what makes theists superior to atheists is not their faith, but in fact their doubt. I can't speak for every theist, but it's certainly my case that my faith in God goes hand in hand with a lot of skepticism. My belief in God is accompanied by the dreadful suspicion that I may, after all, be deluding myself. I think the same is true of most, perhaps all theists.

Atheism, on the contrary, seems a close-minded position. The atheist sees himself as the master of a universe in which he is the sole bearer of truth. In the atheist's mind there is no doubt, no sense of insecurity, no possibility that he might be wrong without realizing it. Unlike most people, the atheist is not bothered by the fact that his feeling of certainty is not shared by the absolute majority of people around him; in fact he often takes pride in that. The atheist believes people fool themselves too easily, but somehow believes he can't possibly be also a victim of the same weakness. When it comes to cosmic matters, both theists and atheists are ignorant, but the theist has the advantage of making his ignorance a central fact in his philosophy, while the atheist chooses to disregard it.

These ideas are not mine, it's just something I read that makes some sense.


No. This doesn't make sense. This is what Theists make up.

It is in fact a reflection on the position of Theism, which comes which the attributes of Absolutes.

Science has Relativism. We know we can not know everything, and that every knowledge position (including that of theism) is a relative position.

There is no theory that claims to be the absolute truth.

The only thought system which claims absolutes is Theism itself.

[Zero]

The coolest new position I've heard of is the one that has gotten the name 'Apatheism'...you believe what youb believe what you believe, or not, but you don't care about what other people do, unless it starts to directly affect you.

[amadeus]

Originally posted by radagast
You have present material that paints me, and a number of others with a brush that doesn't apply. If you can find where I've made such attacks then I'd be happy to publically apologize and retire.
Then I'm obviously not talking about you! What made you think I was?

[radagast]

Originally posted by amadeus
Then I'm obviously not talking about you! What made you think I was?

You post something that insults the intelligence of atheists,
[this targets me, as an atheist]

as part of a response it is stated that most atheists do not have beliefs set in stone, as stated in the initial post,

Your response was that since theists are attacked by atheists, then why aren't atheists fair game for attack by theists,
[this targets me, as an atheist]

My response was that two wrongs don't make a right,

Your response implied I was supporting that atheist (and I'm talking me specifically, since it was my post you were responding to) insults of theists were allowed [quote: "So how many wrongs are allowed? Just one?" ]

This was what made me think you were talking of a group that included me. I think most impartial observers would agree.

I hope this answers your question sufficiently.




This, for many, is a emotionally charged subject. Both sides feel attacked [sometimes justifiably so]. As a result, it is easy to fall into the trap of being overly broad in response - with regard to your response this it what I am reacting to. I have also posted when I thought atheists were overly broad in attacking theists.

While I realize you have not stated that the original post held your views, the fact that you posted it, uncritically, gives argument that you accepted at least part of it.

[amadeus]

Originally posted by radagast
While I realize you have not stated that the original post held your views, the fact that you posted it, uncritically, gives argument that you accepted at least part of it.
I do, and I tried to make it very clear which "part" of it I accepted. That would be the fact that most theists experience doubt while most atheists don't.

For instance, a theist might go through the experience of not having his prayers answered. If he's rational and sane, I'm quite sure that makes him think this prayer business is just a fairytale. Every theist is also an atheist! But most atheists can't contemplate what theism means; they don't go through the experience of faith as often as the theist goes through the experience of doubt. So maybe the theist knows more about the atheist experience than the atheist knows about the theist experience.

That is the part of the argument that makes sense to me. But accepting that it makes sense is not the same thing as accepting it as true.

It's quite ironic that, as far as I can tell, only the few theists who replied understood what I was talking about. The atheists were, without exception, either defending their positions or counter-attacking, both beside the point as far as I'm concerned.

[selfAdjoint]

Back to the original post (which I am not going to copy).

There are two questions: Firstly is there a God, and secondarily does any particular religion such as Christianity accurately identify him.

Concerning the first question it is prudent to be agnostic. We don't know everything about the universe, and there is no real evidence in what we do know to settle the question.

Concerning the second question, I think there is plenty of evidence to show that the historical Christian Church, or any other existing religion, is founded on error or wishful thinking. The documents that are supposed to be evidence for the great antiscientific miracle of the resurrection were written long after the events they describe and show evidence of tampering by later generations.

[Zantra]

Based on what I've read here, I will formally adjust my status to agnostic, as I'm not certain about god. The only certainty that I have is that I do not know everything. And that's a very good place to start, IMHO.

Incidentally Royce, wise words. Didn't know you were a Bhuddist monk[;)]

One point I did want to make is the inconsistency between the different religions. If I were to suddenly accept god, I wouldn't know which way to turn. There is no unity in religion. A lot of religions have some base principals they can agree on, but for the most part are contradictory to each other. I think that is one major flaw in religion that casts doubt. There is no unity, no single, solidifying truth that binds them all together. So in essence they compete against each other, as well as atheism. God cannot be Allah, and Jesus cannot be a disciple, just as Zeus cannot be God. I guess my point is that it would be more believable if there were a single, unifying belief, but there isn't. Too many storytellers make a bad story(it's an analogy).

[Royce]

Thanks, Zantra, not a monk but a student.

Your post is exactly why I do not participate in any organized religion yet consider myself religous and a christian and well as student of all religions. It has been my finding that vertually all religions, denomonations,sects and cults, except some of the most extreme cults, have many things in common. As I think of it, everybody has some of the truth but nobody has all of the truth.
An open and receptive mind is all that is needed.

[radagast]

Originally posted by amadeus
I do, and I tried to make it very clear which "part" of it I accepted. That would be the fact that most theists experience doubt while most atheists don't.

Though I do have to mention the caveat that I live in the deep south, my experiences are totally the opposite. Though I have met many thoughtful theists, that I am sure have questioned their faith, the majority of theists I've met have been people that not only haven't questioned the existence of god, but consider that a sin.

For instance, a theist might go through the experience of not having his prayers answered. If he's rational and sane, I'm quite sure that makes him think this prayer business is just a fairytale. Every theist is also an atheist! But most atheists can't contemplate what theism means;

I find that a strange statement, most atheists started as theists. How can we not have contemplated what that means. We went thru a great deal of religious inquiry and soul searching to get to a point were we could accept that we didn't believe in a god anymore.

You are setting up a characture of an atheist, devoid of reality. It seems to be based on the arguments you run into on the web (from what I guess). This will completely skew your view of atheists. Even Megashawn, one of the more over-the-top atheists here has said that with some evidence he would consider that god exists.

they don't go through the experience of faith as often as the theist goes through the experience of doubt. So maybe the theist knows more about the atheist experience than the atheist knows about the theist experience.

We've lived the theist experience. It is what got most of us to being an atheist. That said, how many theists do you know were atheists. I can only count a handful, most on this forum.

That is the part of the argument that makes sense to me. But accepting that it makes sense is not the same thing as accepting it as true. Unlike many theists, I'm not trying to convince others of the truth of my beliefs (or lack thereof), only to show them that it was arrived at rationally, not because "I'm rebelling against god", "I'm freeing myself to do immoral things", or any number of other strawman characterizations of atheists I've seen over the years.

It's quite ironic that, as far as I can tell, only the few theists who replied understood what I was talking about. The atheists were, without exception, either defending their positions or counter-attacking, both beside the point as far as I'm concerned. Well, you were not attacking them. As I remember, Royce disagreed with you too.

As an atheist, I'm not trying to force my views on others. I do ask that they are respected. In your posts you continue to use charactures of atheists as examples, examples that are, with little doubt, not exemplary of atheists in general.

I find it extremely ironic that you have a post questioning atheist intellectual capacity, yet continue to resort to strawman argument flaws, even after they have been pointed out.

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Zantra
One point I did want to make is the inconsistency between the different religions. If I were to suddenly accept god, I wouldn't know which way to turn. There is no unity in religion.
But if they are so different why do we call them all "religion"? They must have something in common, otherwise we wouldn't perceive them as being the same thing.

What you're saying is equivalent to saying countries are "inconsistent", that if you were to suddenly accept one country you wouldn't know which to choose. Between America and Armenia, India and Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Brazil, how can you know which country is "true"?

I say you're missing the point.
A lot of religions have some base principals they can agree on, but for the most part are contradictory to each other. I think that is one major flaw in religion that casts doubt. There is no unity, no single, solidifying truth that binds them all together.
Countries are the embodiment of the idea that we can make this world better than it is. We don't know the best way to organize as a society, the issue is far too complex for anyone to understand, but that doesn't prevent people from trying as many ideas as possible, keep the few ones that work and discard the huge pile of garbage.

Religion is no different. First, it's an attempt to build a better world, and the fact that it fails more often than it succeeds doesn't mean we must stop trying. And second, religion is constantly evolving. We have come a long way from the days of altar sacrifices; our understanding of spiritual matters has evolved as much as our understanding of nature. Neither one is complete, but there's no reason to dismiss one in favour of the other.
So in essence they compete against each other, as well as atheism. God cannot be Allah, and Jesus cannot be a disciple, just as Zeus cannot be God. I guess my point is that it would be more believable if there were a single, unifying belief, but there isn't. Too many storytellers make a bad story(it's an analogy).
So just because all religions disagree on some points it means none of them is right on any particular issue? If Christians believe a man can only have one wife and Muslims believe a man can have many wives, are you ready to maintain both Christians and Muslims are mistaken? If a Christian believes we only live once and a Buddhist believes we live many lives, do you really believe they are both wrong?

You are a Westerner (I assume) and that makes you a Christian, like it or not. Christianity is so embedded in the core of our society, so much a part of what we consider right and true, that we tend to see many aspects of Christian doctrine as truisms.

[Pirwzwhomper]

Originally posted by amadeus: You are a Westerner (I assume) and that makes you a Christian, like it or not. Christianity is so embedded in the core of our society, so much a part of what we consider right and true, that we tend to take it for granted.
Talk about a broad brush! [8)] [s(]

I live in America, and I am NOT a Christian. I do not hold dear any Christian belief. I do not believe that Jesus was the son of a god. I do not think the bible was inspired by a god. I am offended that you would label me as such.

I do recognize, regrettably, that there are Judeo-Christian symbols aplenty in western society, but that does not make all westerners Christian.

Also, I would like you to say which parts of the "core of our society" are so embedded with Christianity, since that is so important to your claim.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pirwzwhomper
Originally posted by amadeus:
Talk about a broad brush! [8)] [s(]

I live in America, and I am NOT a Christian. I do not hold dear any Christian belief. I do not believe that Jesus was the son of a god. I do not think the bible was inspired by a god. I am offended that you would label me as such.

I do recognize, regrettably, that there are Judeo-Christian symbols aplenty in western society, but that does not make all westerners Christian.

Also, I would like you to say which parts of the "core of our society" are so embedded with Christianity, since that is so important to your claim. The problem, I think, is that people who lack confidence in their faith seek outside validation of their faith. They have to think that everyone must agree with them, because their faith isn't strong enough to stand on its own. I am an American, and I am an atheist. I have NO link to Christianity, it is not embedded in me in the least.

That nonsense about Christianity being the core of America is a lie that makes fundamentalists feel better, in a world that is moving beyond their narrow antiquated views.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by amadeus
But if they are so different why do we call them all "religion"? They must have something in common, otherwise we wouldn't perceive them as being the same thing.

That's just it, they aren't viewed as "one thing" They are each viewed seperately and distinctly. Each religion is an island unto itself. And each religion believes that the other one is false. This is the dissention I'm trying to point out


What you're saying is equivalent to saying countries are "inconsistent", that if you were to suddenly accept one country you wouldn't know which to choose. Between America and Armenia, India and Switzerland, Lichtenstein and Brazil, how can you know which country is "true"?

I say you're missing the point.

Countries are the embodiment of the idea that we can make this world better than it is. We don't know the best way to organize as a society, the issue is far too complex for anyone to understand, but that doesn't prevent people from trying as many ideas as possible, keep the few ones that work and discard the huge pile of garbage.


You can't analogize religion with world politics, it just doesn't fly. You're talking about peaceful coexistence. I'm talking about agreeing upon a common ideal to make an overall accepted truth. The fact that there is more than one world religion detracts from it's credebility, plain and simple. Because the logistics are, that obviously everyone cannot be right with opposing viewpoints. So if we are to accept religion as valid, we first have to acknowledge that one religion is right, and everyone else is wrong. But no one will do that. I'm pointing out an obvious, logical flaw that cannot be easily be dismissed.


Religion is no different. First, it's an attempt to build a better world, and the fact that it fails more often than it succeeds doesn't mean we must stop trying. And second, religion is constantly evolving. We have come a long way from the days of altar sacrifices; our understanding of spiritual matters has evolved as much as our understanding of nature. Neither one is complete, but there's no reason to dismiss one in favour of the other. Yes it is a common goal of religion to make the world a better place, but I'm speaking of the lack of unity on the format, not the premise.


So just because all religions disagree on some points it means none of them is right on any particular issue? If Christians believe a man can only have one wife and Muslims believe a man can have many wives, are you ready to maintain both Christians and Muslims are mistaken? If a Christian believes we only live once and a Buddhist believes we live many lives, do you really believe they are both wrong?


Ultimately there is only one wrong and one right when speaking objectively. You're talking in abstract terms that are subjective. You're bringing up social ideals that have nothing to do with the question of weather god exists. I'm not saying religion shouldn't decide it's own moral values distinctly, but I am saying something much more fundamental, as I've already outlined.


You are a Westerner (I assume) and that makes you a Christian, like it or not. Christianity is so embedded in the core of our society, so much a part of what we consider right and true, that we tend to see many aspects of Christian doctrine as truisms.

You are an easterner (I assume) I guess that makes you a zen Buddhist who walks around praciticing Karate and catching flys with chopsticks? That's the equivalent of what you just said. Yes I am a westerner, no I do not espouse the beliefs of Christianity. You didn't read very closely. The first sentence in my post SAYS I'm AGNOSTIC. Making prejudiced attacks on me will get you nowhere.

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem, I think, is that people who lack confidence in their faith seek outside validation of their faith. They have to think that everyone must agree with them, because their faith isn't strong enough to stand on its own. I am an American, and I am an atheist. I have NO link to Christianity, it is not embedded in me in the least.

That nonsense about Christianity being the core of America is a lie that makes fundamentalists feel better, in a world that is moving beyond their narrow antiquated views.
Sheesh!!! This is getting fun!

First, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian.

Second, I'm Catholic but I haven't been to a church in years. I don't even own a bible.

Third, you don't have to be American to speak English. Bad assumption! I live some 10,000 kilometres from the US. Thank God.

You are obviously not interested in understanding what I'm trying to say. You "know" I'm an American fundamentalist trying to assert that the United States is a fundamentally Christian nation.

Yet, you have my sympathy. The little knowledge I have of American society makes it really appear like you guys have far too many uneducated religious fanatics than it would be reasonable for such a wealthy nation. Keep up the good fight; when your society reaches the level of civilization my own has then we can talk.

[radagast]

Originally posted by amadeus
You are a Westerner (I assume) and that makes you a Christian, like it or not. Christianity is so embedded in the core of our society, so much a part of what we consider right and true, that we tend to see many aspects of Christian doctrine as truisms.

Christianity, without doubt, has had a profound influence on our culture. But there's a big difference between cultural influence and being Christian. Christians are defined by a belief in Christ as the son of god and savior, not where you were born or what your culture is.

I don't believe that Christ was the son of god, therefore I'm not a Christian. I do follow the teachings of Gautama Buddha, therefore I am a Buddhist. I don't believe that (a) god exists, therefore I'm an atheist. All of these are belief or practice oriented, not culturally dictated.

I am a westerner and that there are many aspects of the Christian doctrine inculcated into our culture I would not deny, but that is not in question. The question is if I believed in the divinity of Christ, therefore I'm not a Christian.

[Zero]

Originally posted by amadeus
Sheesh!!! This is getting fun!

First, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian.

Second, I'm Catholic but I haven't been to a church in years. I don't even own a bible.

Third, you don't have to be American to speak English. Bad assumption! I live some 10,000 kilometres from the US. Thank God.

You are obviously not interested in understanding what I'm trying to say. You "know" I'm an American fundamentalist trying to assert that the United States is a fundamentally Christian nation.

Yet, you have my sympathy. The little knowledge I have of American society makes it really appear like you guys have far too many uneducated religious fanatics than it would be reasonable for such a wealthy nation. Keep up the good fight; when your society reaches the level of civilization my own has then we can talk.

That wasn't directed at you...it waqs just a general comment towards the most fanatical elements. Otherwise, I think religious belief is 'mostly harmless'.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by amadeus
Sheesh!!! This is getting fun!

First, I'm not a fundamentalist Christian.

Second, I'm Catholic but I haven't been to a church in years. I don't even own a bible.

Third, you don't have to be American to speak English. Bad assumption! I live some 10,000 kilometres from the US. Thank God.

You are obviously not interested in understanding what I'm trying to say. You "know" I'm an American fundamentalist trying to assert that the United States is a fundamentally Christian nation.

Yet, you have my sympathy. The little knowledge I have of American society makes it really appear like you guys have far too many uneducated religious fanatics than it would be reasonable for such a wealthy nation. Keep up the good fight; when your society reaches the level of civilization my own has then we can talk.

Oh well then please enlighten us the location of your FAR superior nation so I can become a citizen there as soon as poosible. I realize now that the US is a festering Cesspool and your oh so divine words have moved me to abandon my nation for the place where they actually know what's going on.[;)]

We are interested in what you have to say. We are NOT however interested in your arrogance and condescension. Check it at the door and continue with useful dicussion.

EDIT: I won't dispute the excessive fanatics part- Blame Jim and Tammy Baker[;)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by amadeus
Yet, you have my sympathy. The little knowledge I have of American society makes it really appear like you guys have far too many uneducated religious fanatics than it would be reasonable for such a wealthy nation.

Finally, something we can agree on! YES! We have far more uneducated and educated religious fanatics than would be reasonable for any nation.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zantra
One point I did want to make is the inconsistency between the different religions. If I were to suddenly accept god, I wouldn't know which way to turn. There is no unity in religion. A lot of religions have some base principals they can agree on, but for the most part are contradictory to each other. I think that is one major flaw in religion that casts doubt. There is no unity, no single, solidifying truth that binds them all together. So in essence they compete against each other, as well as atheism. God cannot be Allah, and Jesus cannot be a disciple, just as Zeus cannot be God. I guess my point is that it would be more believable if there were a single, unifying belief, but there isn't. Too many storytellers make a bad story(it's an analogy).

Actually there is a common thread running through all religions and spiritual practices, namely the conception of the spiritual experience itself. This universal 'truth' is denoted as the perennial philosophy. Here's a good link: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/mys/prenphil.htm

[radagast]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Actually there is a common thread running through all religions and spiritual practices, namely the conception of the spiritual experience itself.

I would agree. While there may be many religious folk who haven't experienced a spiritual experience, I've not run into a single religion that doesn't have the spiritual experience at the core of it's beliefs/practices.

[Opinion]

Originally posted by amadeus
I recently read an argument that atheists are fools, not for disbelieving in God, but for believing too much in themselves. The writer argues that what makes theists superior to atheists is not their faith, but in fact their doubt. I can't speak for every theist, but it's certainly my case that my faith in God goes hand in hand with a lot of skepticism. My belief in God is accompanied by the dreadful suspicion that I may, after all, be deluding myself. I think the same is true of most, perhaps all theists.


Hey amadeus... howz it goin buddy,

Anyway,

"My belief in God is accompanied by the dreadful suspicion that I may, after all, be deluding myself. I think the same is true of most, perhaps all theists." - amadeus

First of all, How can you believe in God when you have a "dreadful suspicion"? Let us be frank, you don't believe in God, and you never have. Your faith is only "faith" because you say it is. I'm sure you have had true faith in something, in turn, you'd either react or not react because of it. A lot of people who say they "believe" do this crap... especially in this day and age, but in reality, you belive nothing and you are always doubting. Not "all theists" are like yourself, as you intend to imply. The apostle Paul had real faith, and he also preached about those people who deceive themselves and others concerning the faith, being that they have none. Moses, Abraham, Isaac, David, "Blind" Barnabeus, "The woman" with the blood illness, etc. They all had faith; therefore, there lives are testimony of that faith. Now, since the idiots of "generation X" followed in there fathers' footsteps of apostacy, nobody knows what to believe... which has suppressed faith in God. Philosophy and science has now mingled themselves with religion, why? Because of the lack of faith... atheist are created everyday because of the need for concrete logic as opposed to real faith. All through Biblical history this behavior is displayed by the multitudes... howbeit, only a few had the faith, and God recognized them. Even today, there are real christians who have this same faith, but they are consider the outcast or "holy rollers"... and usually their churches are small and they dress differently than everyone else. Granted, there are vain christians amongst them, but who can track them?

For all you Bible "scholars":

Colossians 2: 8-10
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [9] For in Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. [10] And ye are complete in Him, which is the head of all principality and power."

Further, it is funny how NOT ONE SINGLE prophecy has failed in the Bible. These things true theist ponder upon, by faith. And yes, it is scary to know the truth... especially when 99% of the people you encounter don't.

[FZ+]

Just goes to show, there's an exception to every rule.

[Pirwzwhomper]

posted by hypnagogue
Actually there is a common thread running through all religions and spiritual practices, namely the conception of the spiritual experience itself. Spiritual Experience is a very vague topic. Just sitting there could be a spiritual experience. Seeing an eagle flying overhead could be a spiritual experience. Reading the relgious scriptures of a certain practice could be called a spiritual experience. Tripping over a rock could be a spiritual experience. Eating you favorite flavor Combos could be a spiritual experience. What couldn't be said to be a spiritual experience? There is no way to discern what is and what is not a spiritual experience. It is solely up to the person to decide, and that makes it a subjective topic as well as vague.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Actually there is a common thread running through all religions and spiritual practices, namely the conception of the spiritual experience itself. This universal 'truth' is denoted as the perennial philosophy. Here's a good link: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/mys/prenphil.htm

Agreed, but the most important point, and the one that I'm referring to, is the lack of agreement on God, Allah, Zeus, or whoever your "supreme being" is. Unless we're saying that they are all sitting up in heaven waiting?

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zantra
Agreed, but the most important point, and the one that I'm referring to, is the lack of agreement on God, Allah, Zeus, or whoever your "supreme being" is. Unless we're saying that they are all sitting up in heaven waiting?

As I see it, God, Allah, and Zeus are names and explanations for the spiritual experience compiled by their respective historical cultures. That is, they are of secondary importance to the spiritual experience when it comes to establishing a religion; they are after-the-fact creations that follow from some visionary's subjective enlightenment. However, over time, the distinction dissolves, and religious groups equate the explanation with the phenomenon-- hence the dogmatic attitude that 'my God' is the right one. (Actually, the traces of this attitude can be found in the spiritual experience itself, wherein the experiencer has intense feelings of unitary oneness and universal interconnectedness-- there appears to be only one true Thing, and that Thing is later reconciled to be God. Thus, after a religious faction has attached its mythological elements to the founding spiritual insight, those attachments come to take on the same flavor-- they are the only One, they are the right one. However, it looks to me as if this is really just one big confusion arising between those who have had the experience and those who have not and strive to understand it in terms of their mythologies.)

I think it is preferable to view the specific and distinct metaphysical claims of religions as cultural phenomena, but the underlying substance that can be seen to be common across religions as the true teachings of that religion-- since that common ground is more or less an unmistakable description of the spiritual experience. Of course, this is not the angle you will get from theists, so I see where the problem arises. But I advise trying to look past God vs. Allah vs. Thor and instead trying to recognize the founding, underlying spiritual principles.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Pirwzwhomper
Spiritual Experience is a very vague topic. Just sitting there could be a spiritual experience. Seeing an eagle flying overhead could be a spiritual experience. Reading the relgious scriptures of a certain practice could be called a spiritual experience. Tripping over a rock could be a spiritual experience. Eating you favorite flavor Combos could be a spiritual experience. What couldn't be said to be a spiritual experience? There is no way to discern what is and what is not a spiritual experience. It is solely up to the person to decide, and that makes it a subjective topic as well as vague.

I am speaking of the unitive, mystic spiritual experience. This experience is certainly subjective, and exceedingly difficult to communicate. But it is not arbitrary either. Here's a good link describing what it is like:

http://www.csp.org/experience/docs/noetic_gnosis.html

[Zantra]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
As I see it, God, Allah, and Zeus are names and explanations for the spiritual experience compiled by their respective historical cultures. That is, they are of secondary importance to the spiritual experience when it comes to establishing a religion; they are after-the-fact creations that follow from some visionary's subjective enlightenment. However, over time, the distinction dissolves, and religious groups equate the explanation with the phenomenon-- hence the dogmatic attitude that 'my God' is the right one. (Actually, the traces of this attitude can be found in the spiritual experience itself, wherein the experiencer has intense feelings of unitary oneness and universal interconnectedness-- there appears to be only one true Thing, and that Thing is later reconciled to be God. Thus, after a religious faction has attached its mythological elements to the founding spiritual insight, those attachments come to take on the same flavor-- they are the only One, they are the right one. However, it looks to me as if this is really just one big confusion arising between those who have had the experience and those who have not and strive to understand it in terms of their mythologies.)

I think it is preferable to view the specific and distinct metaphysical claims of religions as cultural phenomena, but the underlying substance that can be seen to be common across religions as the true teachings of that religion-- since that common ground is more or less an unmistakable description of the spiritual experience. Of course, this is not the angle you will get from theists, so I see where the problem arises. But I advise trying to look past God vs. Allah vs. Thor and instead trying to recognize the founding, underlying spiritual principles.

Oh I agree with the base fundamental beliefs that all religions represent. Do no harm to others, treat others with respect, etc. Those are beliefs that are integral to society. I think they are a necessity regardless of religion. As for the spirituality, That's something that can be practiced regardless of religion, or even if you don't have a religion you ascribe to. But as to the issue of a supreme being, I don't believe we can know for sure, and the fact that there is more than one explanation detracts from it's credibility

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Opinion
Further, it is funny how NOT ONE SINGLE prophecy has failed in the Bible. These things true theist ponder upon, by faith. And yes, it is scary to know the truth... especially when 99% of the people you encounter don't. Prophecy is a piece of cake when a prophecy isn't required to be a prediction or when its so general as to be meaningless.

As for the main point of the thread, I disagree. In my experience, those who are overly religious are more closed minded than those who are not. Religion synonomous with dogma.Agreed, but the most important point, and the one that I'm referring to, is the lack of agreement on God, Allah, Zeus, or whoever your "supreme being" is. I don't see the problem there, Zantra. Allah, literally translated means "God." So the passage reads "There is one god and his name is God." Why is it such a stretch to believe that all monotheistic religions worship the same God but call him by different (barely) names? Shouldn't that be self evident?

I think as a Christian, I am unusually tolerant of other religions. I find most overly religious people (despite what their scriptures teach) to be intolerant of others with dissimilar beliefs. The easiest way to attack someone of another religion is based on the identity of God. Otherwise we're just arguing the specifics of how to worship him, and it isn't easy to show one way is better than another.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zantra
Oh I agree with the base fundamental beliefs that all religions represent. Do no harm to others, treat others with respect, etc. Those are beliefs that are integral to society. I think they are a necessity regardless of religion. As for the spirituality, That's something that can be practiced regardless of religion, or even if you don't have a religion you ascribe to. But as to the issue of a supreme being, I don't believe we can know for sure, and the fact that there is more than one explanation detracts from it's credibility

I'm not arguing for the existence of God here, but consider an analogy. There are a whole lot of interpretations as to the physical meaning behind the mathematics of quantum mechanics, and it is unclear if we will ever know for sure which, if any, is the 'correct' one. Does this detract from the credibility of quantum mechanics? A typical answer is that quantum mechanics can be verified objectively, regardless of how we interpret the data. A mystic, on the other hand, will tell you that 'God' can be verified subjectively, regardless of how we interpret the spiritual experience.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Pirwzwhomper
Spiritual Experience is a very vague topic. Just sitting there could be a spiritual experience. Seeing an eagle flying overhead could be a spiritual experience. Reading the relgious scriptures of a certain practice could be called a spiritual experience. Tripping over a rock could be a spiritual experience. Eating you favorite flavor Combos could be a spiritual experience. What couldn't be said to be a spiritual experience? There is no way to discern what is and what is not a spiritual experience. It is solely up to the person to decide, and that makes it a subjective topic as well as vague. Well, I guess it all depends on whether you're "spiritual" or not. [;)]

[radagast]

Originally posted by Opinion
Further, it is funny how NOT ONE SINGLE prophecy has failed in the Bible. These things true theist ponder upon, by faith. And yes, it is scary to know the truth... especially when 99% of the people you encounter don't.

Neither has Nostradamuse's prophecies. Funny, when you can interpret something literally or metaphorically, then judging prophecy is a whole lot easier. If one interpretation fails, then we can all say it was just the interpretation in error, not the bible.

I seem to remember several 'interpretations' that had people selling all their property and retreating to some field or mountain top for the 'rapture'. But, as I said, that was their interpretation at fault, not the bible.

This also avoids/ignores the aspect raised by the linguistic studies that showed many of the prophecies mentioned in the bible, were made 'after' the event prophecied, according to the linguistic usages of the respective passages. Obviously this research was performed on the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic.

[Pirwzwhomper]

posted by Iacchus32
Well, I guess it all depends on whether you're "spiritual" or not. I guess it does.

[radagast]

Originally posted by Pirwzwhomper
Spiritual Experience is a very vague topic. Just sitting there could be a spiritual experience. Seeing an eagle flying overhead could be a spiritual experience. Reading the relgious scriptures of a certain practice could be called a spiritual experience. Tripping over a rock could be a spiritual experience. Eating you favorite flavor Combos could be a spiritual experience. What couldn't be said to be a spiritual experience? There is no way to discern what is and what is not a spiritual experience. It is solely up to the person to decide, and that makes it a subjective topic as well as vague.

If you've never experienced a profound spiritual experience (which is how I interpret the way spiritual experience is spoken of here), then I can see how you would say it is vague. Of people I've spoken to, who've had a strong spiritual experience, none would consider 'vague' to be used in the same lexicon as in describing the experience.

While I'm not Christian/Jewish/Muslim, I can understand what they are talking about when speaking of the spiritual experiences they've had. Though the interpretations are different, the experiences are amazingly similar.

[Pirwzwhomper]

So could one possibly equate a spiritual experience with an epiphany of their own spiritual beliefs?

By epiphany, I mean in the term of definition 3a on dictionary.com:
"A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something."

[radagast]

Originally posted by Pirwzwhomper
So could one possibly equate a spiritual experience with an epiphany of their own spiritual beliefs?

By epiphany, I mean in the term of definition 3a on dictionary.com:
"A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something."

The spiritual experience is a profound and powerful experience, that could easily be seen as an endorsement that what you believe is true, assuming what you're practicing (christian prayer, buddhist meditation, judaic meditation) at the approximate time of the spiritual experience.

There is no loud, booming voice saying, "Yep Pirwz, you are correct. I am Zeus and I like what you're doing". However, when a life-changing experience smacks you between the eyes, when everything and everyone appears different, fresh, and alive, when you are patently amazed the everybody outside your skin wasn't aware that this amazing thing has happened, it's easy to start attaching meaning to it that wasn't part of the experience.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Pirwzwhomper
So could one possibly equate a spiritual experience with an epiphany of their own spiritual beliefs?

By epiphany, I mean in the term of definition 3a on dictionary.com:
"A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something."

Pirwzwhomper,

If you haven't read the link I posted yet, I suggest you take a look... It gives a pretty clear description of the 'spiritual experience' as I was using the phrase-- there is clearly something of a core experience going on here, something that, as Radagast noted, isn't vague at all if you have actually experienced it:

http://www.csp.org/experience/docs/noetic_gnosis.html

Profound spiritual experiences are typically responsible for starting religious institutions, insofar as most religions are based on the teachings of spiritual masters who presumably possessed an elevated spiritual awareness-- for instance, although I'm not aware of the Bible alluding to any such particular experience for Jesus, the paradigm he espouses in the Bible is roughly indicative of the way one tends to think and feel during such an experience; and I believe that Islam actually was constructed based on a particular vision (spiritual experience) of its founder, Muhammad. So you can imagine that if whole religions can be created from a spiritual experience, it is no small matter for a practicing member of a religion to identify his/her experience with the teachings of his/her religion. However, there is nothing in the experience itself which lends itself to one religion's teachings any more than another's.

[Pirwzwhomper]

Hmm. Sounds like a bunch of crap, IMHO. But then, one has to believe in the spiritual first.

[Messiah]

Originally posted by amadeus
I recently read an argument that atheists are fools, not for disbelieving in God, but for believing too much in themselves...
-snip-
Atheism, on the contrary, seems a close-minded position. The atheist sees himself as the master of a universe in which he is the sole bearer of truth. In the atheist's mind there is no doubt, no sense of insecurity, no possibility that he might be wrong without realizing it. Unlike most people, the atheist is not bothered by the fact that his feeling of certainty is not shared by the absolute majority of people around him;
-snip-



Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into existence by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. The very process of thought is governed by cause and effect, so scholars instinctively employ that principle in their quest to solve the ultimate mystery of the Universe. Proponents of 'Big Bang' espouse a theory of singularity which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of a spontaneous cosmic eruption. Many contemporary religions believe a devine act of creation gave birth to the infinite cosmos. Both science and theology portray a source of creation - a spawning force of natural or supernatural origin. From cosmologists to clergy, the presumption that the Universe began is quietly accepted without question.

The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the 'beginning of time' a transformation must have taken place, and the physical manifestation of the cosmos resulted. But creation would require a creator - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. Even if that inconsistency is ignored, whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from a cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical 'beginning'.

Supernatural versions of creation sidestep the issue of redundancy with the assertion that whatever created the Universe was not subject to the laws of nature. Of course, when the laws of nature are discarded anything is possible, even the absurd. If immunity could be alleged on one occasion, why could it not be invoked for every natural occurrence. To claim exemption from the laws of nature is to refute logic, itself.

Before something can change - act or be acted upon - it must first exist. The process of 'change' is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. Conditions - or states of being - change during the process of cause and effect, but existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is being, itself. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a function of the phenomenon of existence. This is the very antithesis of the premise that existence is the product of a process - a manifestation or transformation commonly called creation.

If it is not logical to believe that the Universe began, how would it be logical to believe there was a creator?


Theory of Reciprocity (http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com)

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Pirwzwhomper
Hmm. Sounds like a bunch of crap, IMHO. But then, one has to believe in the spiritual first.

Again, it might sound like a bunch of crap if you don't have some first-hand verification of the experience. Having the experience is not predicated on a belief system-- you don't have to believe that there is some 'spiritual essense' to have a spiritual experience. I'm not claiming that you necessarily are 'claimed' or 'possessed' of some numinous essense during the spiritual experience-- only that it is a mode of perception, thought, and consciousness that is distinct from your everyday experience of consciousness. Alternative modes of consciousness undoubtedy exist; if you are skeptical, ask a schizophrenic or a drug user. The spiritual experience is just one such alternative mode of consciousness.

[Zantra]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I'm not arguing for the existence of God here, but consider an analogy. There are a whole lot of interpretations as to the physical meaning behind the mathematics of quantum mechanics, and it is unclear if we will ever know for sure which, if any, is the 'correct' one. Does this detract from the credibility of quantum mechanics? A typical answer is that quantum mechanics can be verified objectively, regardless of how we interpret the data. A mystic, on the other hand, will tell you that 'God' can be verified subjectively, regardless of how we interpret the spiritual experience.

Do I have all the answers? No. That is why I'm agnostic and not atheistic. [;)] Like I mentioned in another post, existence is subjective and in the eye of the believer. You can't prove God exists anymore than I can prove the universe is infinite. We must each find the truth within ourselves.

[Pirwzwhomper]

*Its one of those nights in which I can never find the words to get my idea onto paper, allow me time to think a while on it. I just felt that I had to post something.*

[radagast]

Originally posted by Pirwzwhomper
Hmm. Sounds like a bunch of crap, IMHO. But then, one has to believe in the spiritual first.

Believe in the spiritual??? You don't have to believe crap. Experiencing it tends to be quite good at convincing.

We are not talking (at least I'm not) a supernatural event or experience - we are talking of a different state of consciousness.

You accept other states of consciousness, right?

Do you equally dismiss quantum mechanics, relativity, or playing the Oboe, just because it's outside your current experience base?

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zantra
Do I have all the answers? No. That is why I'm agnostic and not atheistic. [;)] Like I mentioned in another post, existence is subjective and in the eye of the believer. You can't prove God exists anymore than I can prove the universe is infinite. We must each find the truth within ourselves.

Well, I think there are two ways to conceive of 'God.' There is the traditional way, which treats God as some objective mythological object. As I have said before, I think this paradigm of God has been created in an attempt to make sense of the spiritual experience and integrate it into everyday life. Such a treatment defeats the point of what I was trying to get across before-- for a mystic, 'God' primarily exists or is accessed through a specific state of consciousness. Thus, comparing a conception of 'God' in this sense to the conception of an infinite universe is comparing apples and oranges-- one is verified subjectively, the other objectively. Thus, while the mythological 'God' object is by definition quite beyond reach, the experiential 'God' is indeed verified by the appropriate state of consciousness.

[l'Anvers]

Everybody believes in something. Theists believe in a God, atheists do not. Atheists believe science has all the answers. We live in a multidimensional world, according to scientists. If the big bang is the start of the universe, then the first dimension was the start of it all, all energy concentrated in one point. I believe in that one point, and that point to me is God. Whatever you call it. Atheists have a problem calling something defined by science, God. Einstein who defined that everything is energy, still believed in God. All energy together is God to me, and this takes me back to the first dimension. But I do not want to restrict myself to only one dimension. There is more than one point of energy in the universe. If you want to believe that energy is the soul thing in the universe, do so. But there is still a lot of energy we cannot sense or measure, and that still affects our lives. For me, it's devine, for atheists its probably energy, for satanists it's the devil, whatever you worship, whatever is number one for you...

[FZ+]

Uh... number of misconceptions here...

Atheists believe science has all the answers.
Uh... no they don't. The only thing that ties theists together is their lack of belief in god. After that, they can believe in anything, like pink elephants - as long as it isn't divine. Even then, it is invalid to say science has all the answers. Science doesn't have the answers - that's the point. Science is a good method to get closer to the answers.

We live in a multidimensional world, according to scientists.
Of course. Width, Height and Length. Oh you mean the 11? No. That isn't a belief, but a hypothetical derivation - a theory that some scientists are testing, and many don't agree with. No belief required.
The only belief in science is that the search for knowledge is worthwhile. That's it.

If the big bang is the start of the universe, then the first dimension was the start of it all, all energy concentrated in one point.
Uh... I am getting some bad vibes from this statement. From what little I know of string theory, this isn't what is meant. One point? Maybe, from the evidence we find. First dimension... No.

Atheists have a problem calling something defined by science, God.
Modern physics tries to avoid calling anything by a name with too many strings attached. (Hence Quarks, Charm, Strangeness, Colour, Flavour) God needs to be conscious, omnipotent and eternal. Atheists? Well, if they called it God, they wouldn't be atheists by definition, would they?

Einstein who defined that everything is energy, still believed in God.
Uh... key misunderstanding here. Einstien's god is Spinoza's universal order, the god which doesn't play dice. It isn't really god in the strictest, dictionary sense.

But there is still a lot of energy we cannot sense or measure, and that still affects our lives.
Here's my problem... Sense or measure, but still affects? In physical terms, that is a contradiction in terms. We measure everything by the effect they have on what we experience. An entity that still affects our lives must neccessarily be measurable, and sensable. It must be a materialist entity, because it holds the connection with the material existence.

[drag]

Ha ! Ha ! [:D]
How could I miss this thread ?!
Originally posted by FZ+
Is atheism a sign of intellectual weakness?
That's one of the FUNNIEST things I've ever heard ! [:D] [:D]

[l'Anvers]

What I believe and how I see the world is obviously not common knowledge, everyone has his own view on life, and hopefully they can live with it. Multidimensional, sure, but I only can grasp the fourth dimension as the last one proven by science, all dimensions higher than time are hypothetical, I agree. I can't even imagine that there is an 11th or 13th dimension. Occasionaly my fantasy takes me upto 7th or 9th but who believes what one's mind tells him has to be careful not to end up in the nuthouse. I believe it all started at one point. My point is the center of my universe, and everyone has his own view on the universe.