Atheists...

[Didymos Thomas]

i bet that between an atheist and a theist, the atheist has given more thought to his conviction than his counterpart about this. Many believers does not even know what they believe in, while ask an atheist what his belief about the issue and he will give a clear cut explanation.

While I doubt we could devise a suitable test to examine the truth of this statement, I am also convinced that you're probably right.

There are atheists who, like their religious counterparts, give little thought to their views. Atheism, theism, ect is an emotional reaction to many - whether it is an emotional tie to some community event for the theist, or a sense of rebellion against what appears to be an inherently confused dogma for the atheist. Those who carefully consider their views, and use their abstractions to inform the way they live are few and far between in theism and atheism.

And, if you folks don't mind a quick rant through some personal views about the matter - as a religious theist I am not in the least bit concerned if someone believes in god or not. Given the conception of god most people seem to embrace in our time, I'm often happier to see an atheist than a theist - if the person is going to arbitrarily proclaim some point of view, it's better the person arbitrarily reject god-notions rather than arbitrarily embrace god-notions that they do not understand and will, ultimately, pervert.
Some theists might object to my stance on this matter; in our time, my thesis seems to be closer to eastern traditions than western traditions (and I claim the western Christianity as my religious heritage). God doesn't matter. It's about how we act and why we act. If meditations on god help someone cultivate good living, then by all means, go to god. If not, go elsewhere.

We have a tendency to approach god as something to be proved or disproved, as the subject of metaphysical speculation. This sort of speculation has no value, none, unless the speculation helps the practitioner cultivate good living.
Proving or disproving god is a spiritual exercise, not a scientific endeavor.

[Holiday20310401]

Perhaps this goes to show us all how when we just sit down to actually think about why we dedicate our lives to such 'useless features' more people are able to 'see the light' and know that God does not need to exist.

[Didymos Thomas]

Perhaps this goes to show us all how when we just sit down to actually think about why we dedicate our lives to such 'useless features' more people are able to 'see the light' and know that God does not need to exist.

How can you say 'God does not need to exist' in a universal way? You may have no need, nor any use for God. But how can you go so far as to say that God is not needed or necessary, or perhaps even practical, for anyone at all?

Light is central to god analogies and figurative language from traditions all around the world.

[Holiday20310401]

Yeah, there is value to some people believing in God, but if there isn't a value then God would not allow himself to have influence on those who do not wish it to have value (simply a moral absolute in my opinion).
Yet God would ofcourse have influence upon those who believe in it.
The easiest way to allow for this equilibrium would to be only to exist in a fundamental sense (if you can think of a better way tell me); a physical sense, separate from human entities would be excluded because God would have to become something physically without ultimate potential (in whatever sense you wish to give God).
Even visions, or introspects of the subconscious playwrights of the mind are fundamental, lacking experience beyond the scope of a single mind, heck if they are even credible.

God must lack material credence in order to be a part of humanity's rational in my opinion, therefore physically innate, or to a better extent self destruct. And I don't see the people who believe in God and heaven and the whole 'works' viewing God as merely fundamental.

People have the wrong assumption I think that if God were of a physical nature that it would increase its rationality or influence upon us.

Although I guess you could say that God knows, or it is the truth that the most rational way for God to be with humanity is to communicate with every mind individually, not permitting coalesced divinity, however that may work. As I keep hearing in church, keeps annoying me with, "God will find you someday".

And I suppose how can I know the true nature of God's potential. What lies in transcendence? I doubt any answer would benefit humanity because the answer would never be true (the truth would lack understanding, and therefore any insight would be latent, lacking)

Its like saying if humanity never conceived the concept of God does God exist? Because in the end thats all that matters.

It is a needless paradox. But nevertheless very interesting to talk about.

[Didymos Thomas]

Yeah, there is value to some people believing in God, but if there isn't a value then God would not allow himself to have influence on those who do not wish it to have value (simply a moral absolute in my opinion).Yet God would ofcourse have influence upon those who believe in it.

God is a human concept; the influence of God is up to you.

The easiest way to allow for this equilibrium would to be only to exist in a fundamental sense (if you can think of a better way tell me); a physical sense, separate from human entities would be excluded because God would have to become something physically without ultimate potential (in whatever sense you wish to give God).

What equilibrium are we trying to attain?

You follow with some metaphysical speculation about God, as if God needs to be demonstrated in a logically coherent way. Western Christianity follow the Greek tradition of Plato and Aristotle, trying to logically explain God.

Reliance on logically coherent Gods is rather unique to western Christianity. Often God is described in purposefully paradoxical terms in order to emphasize the inability of metaphysical speculation to adequately explain God.

Even visions, or introspects of the subconscious playwrights of the mind are fundamental, lacking experience beyond the scope of a single mind, heck if they are even credible.

What do you mean by credible?

Faith traditions have developed an impressive body of work dedicated to instruction on how to achieve some sort of 'awakening'. The methods are oddly similar in the traditions. Most notably, meditation on breathing; these practices are found in the three western monotheisms, Hinduism and Buddhism. More importantly, we find the sages of the various traditions pioneering methods like meditative breathing independently of one another.

God must lack material credence in order to be a part of humanity's rational in my opinion, therefore physically innate, or to a better extent self destruct. And I don't see the people who believe in God and heaven and the whole 'works' viewing God as merely fundamental.

Many brilliant minds have made metaphysical speculations about God. Those who thought the metaphysical speculations about God were bound to logical coherency represent a minority among those writing about the nature of God. As I say above, many thought such writing should be paradoxical, and intentionally defy logic and reason - the idea was that the literature was poetic, and was to be a meditation on God.

Its like saying if humanity never conceived the concept of God does God exist? Because in the end thats all that matters.

Did humanity think God up out of nowhere? Or did humanity conceive the concept God for something just as we conceived of 'foot' for a part of our anatomy?

And here's something else to consider - does the label 'god' matter at all? Or is 'god' the product of a particular tradition of explaining some universal experience, which other traditions have expressed in different ways corresponding to their peculiar cultural circumstances?

It is a needless paradox. But nevertheless very interesting to talk about.

Very interesting topic with a massive influence on humanity. Some would say the value is in the paradox, others would deny that such a paradox exists.

But I'm not sure God is needless. A purely non-spiritual view of reality is quite rare. Man has had some sort of spiritual perspective ever since he became recognizable as modern man - the Sky God to our most distant hunter-gatherers, and then the Great Mother when man began settling into agrarian life. The rationalism in rejecting God is a product theologians using rationalism to embrace God.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

God is a human concept; the influence of God is up to you.

If God is the influence up to you then many people would consider this the same as humanity already having the potential of God.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

What equilibrium are we trying to attain?

God if viewed physically, would either have influence upon everybody or nobody, it would have to alter to the fundamental to have influence on a few. Although I suppose you see God as something no logically perceived so my points become obsolete. Its just that I believe humanity would not exist without logic so why deny that virtue to the paradox. What people believe heaven to be the place where only the soul or spirit is passed on to obviously does not hold any content of logic so again my point becomes obsolete. Maybe God is like pi. In order to rationalize it we have to deviate from logic completely, and perceive the transcendent. But when we die I think we lose perception completely. I could counter my own arguments with what God was fixed up to be.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You follow with some metaphysical speculation about God, as if God needs to be demonstrated in a logically coherent way. Western Christianity follow the Greek tradition of Plato and Aristotle, trying to logically explain God.

Well I could start to perceive God as beyond logic but then only two outcomes remain; God has to exist and we would have to loose perception for God to have any influence on us at all.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Reliance on logically coherent Gods is rather unique to western Christianity. Often God is described in purposefully paradoxical terms in order to emphasize the inability of metaphysical speculation to adequately explain God.

Yes its very hypocritical. Any influence God has displayed in the bible seems to need logic to perceive, because perception of our conscious nature requires some form of logic, intuition right? So I automatically eliminate Gods construed by religion because a religion's goal is primarily based upon logic, just irrational a lot of the time.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

What do you mean by credible?

Again, my view on what is credible is what makes sense or can make sense, what can be perceived, what is logical. But I'm willing to accept fundamental too. I mean if what God stands for is rational then God has a purpose until you realise that a symbol is not required. But I do not denounce the fact that a symbol has always been a great way of explaining things.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Faith traditions have developed an impressive body of work dedicated to instruction on how to achieve some sort of 'awakening'. The methods are oddly similar in the traditions. Most notably, meditation on breathing; these practices are found in the three western monotheisms, Hinduism and Buddhism. More importantly, we find the sages of the various traditions pioneering methods like meditative breathing independently of one another.

I think being awake implies logic and intellect, not blind faith. But obviously if the majority of humanity has a faith that they hold themselves too then I must be wrong somewhere.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Many brilliant minds have made metaphysical speculations about God. Those who thought the metaphysical speculations about God were bound to logical coherency represent a minority among those writing about the nature of God. As I say above, many thought such writing should be paradoxical, and intentionally defy logic and reason - the idea was that the literature was poetic, and was to be a meditation on God.

I suppose conceiving God in this manner puts one at ease better than logic which is a purpose of God. Perhaps its just better not to think about it then instead of going down a false path.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Did humanity think God up out of nowhere? Or did humanity conceive the concept God for something just as we conceived of 'foot' for a part of our anatomy?

Yes but God is just a symbol, a container to contents that we can conceive and maintain enclosed within ourselves without the dependence of an extra moral frame. Although, in this light, I guess it would be nice to have the comfort an outer pillow like God around one's own moral titanium box.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

And here's something else to consider - does the label 'god' matter at all? Or is 'god' the product of a particular tradition of explaining some universal experience, which other traditions have expressed in different ways corresponding to their peculiar cultural circumstances?

Well I believe God is a product of experience, like a way of balancing the hardships experience can have, an opposite to experience being that God is transcendent in a way. But in both perception and beyond, fundamentals remain a virtue (I would hope) to our soul. So is there a need for a physical sense at all.
If God is a product of such, then God can never remain constant and thus never be perfect, which is good because perfection is insane. But ofcourse that is a quality of God that some religious powers would not want

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Very interesting topic with a massive influence on humanity. Some would say the value is in the paradox, others would deny that such a paradox exists.

The value is definitely in the paradox, I mean in a very twisted sense viewing God through logic makes its purpose easier to understand.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Man has had some sort of spiritual perspective ever since he became recognizable as modern man

Yes but spiritual perspectives are there for explaining the transcendent. I still find it crazy though to say that it was God's will in explaining an event with an undefined purpose, just because people believe every action must have moral attributes to themselves.

[Didymos Thomas]

Its just that I believe humanity would not exist without logic so why deny that virtue to the paradox.

Man has use of reason - that's one of our qualities, and this quality, like all other distinguishable human qualities, is the result of our physical composition. Reason takes place within the brain.

But man does not need rationalism in order to exist. We've done without for most of our history.

What people believe heaven to be the place where only the soul or spirit is passed on to obviously does not hold any content of logic so again my point becomes obsolete.

Why doesn't this have any logic?

We can reason our way to anything. Regardless of the power of a logic argument, the argument doesn't necessarily correspond to reality.

Yes its very hypocritical. Any influence God has displayed in the bible seems to need logic to perceive, because perception of our conscious nature requires some form of logic, intuition right? So I automatically eliminate Gods construed by religion because a religion's goal is primarily based upon logic, just irrational a lot of the time.

There's no inherent hypocrisy here. Perception is not a logical process.

Sometimes, men use reason to justify religion. They use logic to prove god, ect, but this is not the norm.

Again, my view on what is credible is what makes sense or can make sense, what can be perceived, what is logical.

But perception is not a logical faculty. Dogs have perception, but no use of reason. What makes sense is not always logical. And much of our reasoning is done in reverse - we have a conclusion, and then conjure up a rationale for the conclusion, especially where morality is concerned.

I think being awake implies logic and intellect, not blind faith. But obviously if the majority of humanity has a faith that they hold themselves too then I must be wrong somewhere

Not at all - even if everyone disagrees with you, you might still be right.

I use the term 'awake' to represent some sort of spiritual experience, the experience that seems to be had by people the world over. Theophany is a more technical term for theists.

Logic seems to have nothing to do with such experiences. They are beyond human expression; words are insufficient and man's faculty of reason is insufficient to express the experience accurately.

I suppose conceiving God in this manner puts one at ease better than logic which is a purpose of God. Perhaps its just better not to think about it then instead of going down a false path.

What would be a 'false path'?

Yes but God is just a symbol, a container to contents that we can conceive and maintain enclosed within ourselves without the dependence of an extra moral frame. Although, in this light, I guess it would be nice to have the comfort an outer pillow like God around one's own moral titanium box.

The matter has little to do with comfort. Consider some western notions of Satan - no comfort in such a being.

Well I believe God is a product of experience, like a way of balancing the hardships experience can have, an opposite to experience being that God is transcendent in a way.

Notions of God have a variety of influence. The difficulties of a people often influence the way people view God.

But this all is beside the point. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but by experience I meant the sort of experience mystics have had for all of recorded history that cannot be adequately expressed with logic, nor even with language.

The value is definitely in the paradox, I mean in a very twisted sense viewing God through logic makes its purpose easier to understand.

Do you understand God through logic? Or do you evaluate God notions as described by man with the use of logic?

Yes but spiritual perspectives are there for explaining the transcendent.

So, perhaps this experience beyond logic and language is 'real' and not to be discredited because language and reason cannot properly express the experience.

[Arouet]

Just want to take exception to one point, I don't want to appear to be taking a side here, I'd rather observe.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The matter has little to do with comfort. Consider some western notions of Satan - no comfort in such a being.

On the contrary, there is a comfort that is very real to many people - the comfort of elitism. The comfort of "I am one of the people chosen for heaven - everyone else is going to hell". In that context, Satan can be quite a comforting thought.

Of course, this only works if you have no friends outside your own religion, and can backfire with tremendous force in that case. But if one imagines the much more religiously divided Western society in which these ideas first took real hold, the ingenuity of the notion is uncanny.

[Didymos Thomas]

On the contrary, there is a comfort that is very real to many people - the comfort of elitism. The comfort of "I am one of the people chosen for heaven - everyone else is going to hell". In that context, Satan can be quite a comforting thought.

Of course, this only works if you have no friends outside your own religion, and can backfire with tremendous force in that case. But if one imagines the much more religiously divided Western society in which these ideas first took real hold, the ingenuity of the notion is uncanny.

I'm not familiar with any theologian who promoted such an idea. In western Christianity, Satan becomes an evil caricature of the earlier character. There's little comfort in a vile being trying to corrupt the soul of those bound for heaven.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I'm not familiar with any theologian who promoted such an idea. In western Christianity, Satan becomes an evil caricature of the earlier character. There's little comfort in a vile being trying to corrupt the soul of those bound for heaven.

Clarification: That's not theology by any stretch, it's just secondhand from several American Christians and American ex-Christians I know who've talked to me about this sort of thing. They were very clear that at least on some level it was comforting (think schadenfreude, though I may have spelled that wrong) to 'know' that everyone outside their denomination was going to Hell - at least until they made close friends outside that denomination.