Atheists...

[Didymos Thomas]

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.

How is this comfort in Satan? Sounds like some sick comfort in the misfortune of others (as you say, schadenfreude), misfortune at the hand of God - after all, Satan doesn't decide who is going to Heaven. It's comfort in an elitist, vengeful God, not comfort in a terrifying demon who will corrupt one's soul.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

How is this comfort in Satan? Sounds like some sick comfort in the misfortune of others (as you say, schadenfreude), misfortune at the hand of God - after all, Satan doesn't decide who is going to Heaven. It's comfort in an elitist, vengeful God, not comfort in a terrifying demon who will corrupt one's soul.

Fair enough! Sorry for the interruption.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Fair enough! Sorry for the interruption.

Oh no please continue.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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.

Cool, I didn't know that.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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

Yes but man needs rationalism for innovation, and I'm sorry if we do not agree in this respect but existence is only worthy if innovation is construed

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Why doesn't this have any logic?

Logic is a more absolute approach. For example, it is logical to assume that light is non local and the actuality that is able to correspond to logic is universal. Perception to reality is introspectral, just as heaven is, I mean there is no actuality to it because the idea is transcendent. So as I believe logic is more credible heaven and hell are silly thoughts.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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

Yeah you're right.... we can reason our way to anything, so what. Why let our reasoning be manipulated by faith in what reasoning only holds pretense to? Humanity should not live life thinking that morality should narrow our view from the eyes of another (God), when it would be best to follow interpretations of our own rationale. as long as we live in a reality, there should be no mind games of transcendence, when individual logic is such an asset now.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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

Well we reason our perception to give it potential, not just the potential it has on us but for us to be able to manipulate and have potential on it.
Otherwise, what would be the point of consciousness?

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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.

If something makes sense doesn't it mean that it holds true to our mind. I mean what is the purpose of God? Is it there based on perception of it (no causal reasons necessary), or for rational implications? God is meant for reasoning, it symbolizes reasoning. So yeah reasoning through the mind, whatever form you want to call it. Logic, intuit, etc. The mind does not do anything after the body is dead.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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

Yeah, I thought I put a sarcasm smilie after my blurb that your quote was in response to.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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.

I figured that. Perhaps there is a subconscious response to experience that displays extreme importance to the ego. look, in some time science will prove spiritial experiences to be conjured from actual constructs of one's own body. However spiritually awakening they may is important yes, but people should not go insane by believing, 'oh God was the cause for my spiritual experience'. These experiences are just the capabilities of the brain acting in a very great intellectuals.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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.

Well maybe you should elaborate on these experiences. Are they still within the limits of human perception, the five senses, and can they be reasoned? What makes these spiritual experiences different form reality's experiences. What is beyond perception would be that beyond reality, not paralleled to it. People having these experiences probably doubt the prospect of their mind conjuring the very experience.

Have you seen the movie 'A beautiful Mind'? The guy who is super intelligent, has created himself people that aren't existent but very much real to him. It is experience that came from his own brain's abilities.

When the mind gets to a certain point of intellect like a high enough IQ, such projection experiences are naturally the ability of the corresponding mind, so God is an invention of a margin of intellectual capacity.
High enough IQ and the truth is seen, too low and the concept can't even be conceived.

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

Perhaps comfort is only 1 reason, notice the word 'reason'. God will only be viewed as an effect of experience. Its like people have the intuitive sense to envision a causality to experiences. In order for there to be comfort in what hasn't yet come to pass there would have to be fear. People get comfort in the prospect of going to heaven, and yes, fear of .

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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

Well God is about what can't be understood, but anything that can be imagined will at one point be understood, assuming humanity is immortal.
Personally, I doubt God has to conceive. I don't consider myself evaluating God's notions, directly. I just use what ideas I come up with to conceive what notions God would correspond to in a given circumstance.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

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

Experience is carried out through the mind being conscious. I guess its all about whether the mind is separate from the conscience or whether the consciousness requires a mind. Anything beyond our mind should not be of influence to our state of consciousness today, being that of a self aware mind. We should just live our lives, knowing that most of us are for the majority of events.. sane, and not outside influence would be of benefit. Unless one feels the need for God of course, then sure I don't denounce that, though I feel a tinge of pity.

[Didymos Thomas]

Cool, I didn't know that.

You said man would not exist without logic - and that statement misses the point. Logic is one of man's abilities. Man would exist without logic; we just wouldn't have that particular ability. Man can exist without feet.

Yes but man needs rationalism for innovation, and I'm sorry if we do not agree in this respect but existence is only worthy if innovation is construed

We managed to develop agriculture without rationalism.

Logic is a more absolute approach. For example, it is logical to assume that light is non local and the actuality that is able to correspond to logic is universal. Perception to reality is introspectral, just as heaven is, I mean there is no actuality to it because the idea is transcendent. So as I believe logic is more credible heaven and hell are silly thoughts.

Why discrdit the transcendent?

Either way, heaven and hell have been logically defended.

Yeah you're right.... we can reason our way to anything, so what.

So maybe absolute reliance on reason isn't such a good idea.

Well we reason our perception to give it potential, not just the potential it has on us but for us to be able to manipulate and have potential on it.
Otherwise, what would be the point of consciousness?

I have no idea how this relates to the issue.

I'm not even sure what you're saying.

Is it there based on perception of it (no causal reasons necessary), or for rational implications? God is meant for reasoning, it symbolizes reasoning. So yeah reasoning through the mind, whatever form you want to call it. Logic, intuit, etc.

God is meant for reasoning? That's a minority opinion of God.

I figured that. Perhaps there is a subconscious response to experience that displays extreme importance to the ego. look, in some time science will prove spiritial experiences to be conjured from actual constructs of one's own body. However spiritually awakening they may is important yes, but people should not go insane by believing, 'oh God was the cause for my spiritual experience'. These experiences are just the capabilities of the brain acting in a very great intellectuals.

So what if these experiences are part of our mind's capability - obviously, some people are capable of having the experience.

Well maybe you should elaborate on these experiences. Are they still within the limits of human perception, the five senses, and can they be reasoned? What makes these spiritual experiences different form reality's experiences. What is beyond perception would be that beyond reality, not paralleled to it. People having these experiences probably doubt the prospect of their mind conjuring the very experience.

Have you seen the movie 'A beautiful Mind'? The guy who is super intelligent, has created himself people that aren't existent but very much real to him. It is experience that came from his own brain's abilities.

When the mind gets to a certain point of intellect like a high enough IQ, such projection experiences are naturally the ability of the corresponding mind, so God is an invention of a margin of intellectual capacity.
High enough IQ and the truth is seen, too low and the concept can't even be conceived.

Yeah, I've seen the movie, and I think you misunderstood the film. He wasn't crazu because he was brilliant. He happened to be crazy and brilliant. Appealing to IQ doesn't make much sense - there is no agreed upon definition of intelligence.

Obviously experiences like theophany are within the limits of human experience. They seem to transcend the five senses. We can rationally investigate them; we can rationally investigate anything. The real question is 'what use is the rational investigation of these experiences?'

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You said man would not exist without logic - and that statement misses the point. Logic is one of man's abilities. Man would exist without logic; we just wouldn't have that particular ability. Man can exist without feet.

I meant existence looses its purpose without some form of rationalizing thought. We would be monsters without it, which I doubt would be moral to become.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

We managed to develop agriculture without rationalism.

Agriculture started by pattern recognition. The first humans to go about this would have realized that certain areas of land were the same areas of land that kept re-growing the same plants each year from what they ate from, say corn for example. They would have wanted to know why of course. And eventually they would discover the seed.
Then there is the rational conclusion to collect seeds and grow food in a better location by copying the conditions from where the original plants were growing.
Realizing that water is a source of virtue for plant life, not just by mere luck, humans develop agricultural locations at places where irrigation could take place.
The rationalism is with the virtue of humanity, without agriculture we would not have urbanized the way we have today. If you speak of slaughtering animals as irrational then unless you are a vegetarian thats a hypocritical statement to make. I won't comment on whether its right to slaughter animals.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Why discrdit the transcendent?
Either way, heaven and hell have been logically defended.

- Heaven and hell have been logically defended?!. Plz elaborate.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

So maybe absolute reliance on reason isn't such a good idea.

Too bad, thats just the way humanity is. Good thing we have emotion like what Kethril stated in another thread. Even a theophany experience requires reasoning of it, otherwise theres no point to it. It would simply not exist. We would never think of it again.
If we decided that we could let an experience be unthought of society would crumble. We would have reason upon our actions based upon the premises of the self rather than coalescing reason upon our rationale. God would rather we thought about one another. I think reasoning is required for that. So if we allowed actions or events that occurred to transcend reasoning and be of God's nature then there is an absolute gradient in causality, a part of ourselves would be linear. I think that as society it would lead us to pandemonium.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I have no idea how this relates to the issue.
I'm not even sure what you're saying.

Consciousness is very much relevant, because we are conscious. Are you saying that theophany occurs when we are not self aware? So the perception of the experience is going to be reasoned.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

God is meant for reasoning? That's a minority opinion of God.

God is a cause for what can't be explained through a rational perspective. If a miracle occurs that is against odds and can't be explained then a person might say it was God's bidding or something. So God's nature is not of reason but wants us to live our lives with love and peace, etc. I don't think that sort of thing comes naturally, especially nowadays. We have to think and analyze the past (not critically perhaps) to come to a rational conclusion about how to go about an action.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

So what if these experiences are part of our mind's capability - obviously, some people are capable of having the experience.

Well it is not God providing the experience, it is the mind.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Yeah, I've seen the movie, and I think you misunderstood the film. He wasn't crazu because he was brilliant. He happened to be crazy and brilliant. Appealing to IQ doesn't make much sense - there is no agreed upon definition of intelligence.

I understood that he was crazy and brilliant, I didn't even say earlier that he was crazy. The point was that given a beautiful mind we can all have an experience of the kind that you say is spiritual. God is not involved in this, even if we can not reason our way as to how it happened it doesn't mean that we should give up reason for transcendence. There is still the 'why it happened', something that the mind gives perspective to by reasoning and rationalizing the experience, otherwise the experience had no use in the first place.

There's no agreed upon definition of intelligence-- Yes but I think we can agree that there is some proportionality between the mind and the intelligence; not intelligence and 'God's bidding unto you'.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Obviously experiences like theophany are within the limits of human experience. They seem to transcend the five senses. We can rationally investigate them; we can rationally investigate anything. The real question is 'what use is the rational investigation of these experiences?'

What experience transcends the five senses or what we have knowledge to. Nothing transcendent has experience to follow, otherwise we would at least be able to imagine it.
We would be insane if we didn't rationalize what was around us.

[Didymos Thomas]

I meant existence looses its purpose without some form of rationalizing thought. We would be monsters without it, which I doubt would be moral to become.

I think your describing our capability for self control and reflection - not our ability to employ strict Aristotelean rationalism in every instance of life - which we cannot do.

Heaven and hell have been logically defended?!. Plz elaborate.

Look into theology.

Too bad, thats just the way humanity is.

Actually, that's not the way humanity is. Humanity does not rely on absolute rationalism. We rely on emotion, instinct and simple deductions based on highly personal experience.

Even a theophany experience requires reasoning of it, otherwise theres no point to it. It would simply not exist. We would never think of it again.

I think we've hit complications because you equate thought with reason, and even more complications because of the use of liberal use of reason and rationalism.

We can put two and two together without embarking on some quest for logical coherency. We can reason without being rational. I might determine that no one likes me because the last person I spoke to was mad at me.

Thinking doesn't require rationalism. Reflecting on experience does not require rationalism.

Consciousness is very much relevant, because we are conscious. Are you saying that theophany occurs when we are not self aware? So the perception of the experience is going to be reasoned.

Depends on what you mean by self-aware.

I was more confused about the talk of potential.

Well it is not God providing the experience, it is the mind.

We've only established that the mind is involved - not the that mind is the only factor. Besides, who is to say that God is not, in some way or another, mind, or mind not God?

The point was that given a beautiful mind we can all have an experience of the kind that you say is spiritual. God is not involved in this, even if we can not reason our way as to how it happened it doesn't mean that we should give up reason for transcendence. There is still the 'why it happened', something that the mind gives perspective to by reasoning and rationalizing the experience, otherwise the experience had no use in the first place.

The movie did not depict any sort of religious experience.

No one suggests giving up reason. It's the adherence to rationalism (Rationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) that is questionable.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I think your describing our capability for self control and reflection - not our ability to employ strict Aristotelean rationalism in every instance of life - which we cannot do.

I mean rationalism exists in a more mild sense, even to the point of intuitive thought, not necessarily critical Aristotelian stuff.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Actually, that's not the way humanity is. Humanity does not rely on absolute rationalism. We rely on emotion, instinct and simple deductions based on highly personal experience.

Yeah I know that but thought, as to depicting the truth of something, relies heavily on rationalism.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I think we've hit complications because you equate thought with reason, and even more complications because of the use of liberal use of reason and rationalism.

Yeah it comes with being a high school student . When it comes to finding the truth you seem to feel for it in this case, not judge for it. I just happen to find potential in reason and you in emotion, its a matter of opinion in this case. Reasoning is acting or concluding upon premises and facts. Thinking does not imply the need for facts, is that what this is inferring to?
I mean if we looked at it that way then I really could accept that the Hindu god really is the true God without pondering the irrational implications of what kind of appearance is that. They got it wrong when they gave their God an appearance, which is a reflection of the mind, which through real thinking does not equate to me very well.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

We can put two and two together without embarking on some quest for logical coherency. We can reason without being rational. I might determine that no one likes me because the last person I spoke to was mad at me.

Yes but if you want to waste your time just accepting God without reason then fine. It seems kind of useless to me though. I mean what do you consider in introspective terms the difference between believing in God and not believing in God.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Thinking doesn't require rationalism. Reflecting on experience does not require rationalism.

No but it needs a cognitive process right?, of some sort.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

We've only established that the mind is involved - not the that mind is the only factor. Besides, who is to say that God is not, in some way or another, mind, or mind not God?

Well I doubt God would have a mind if it existed. Any approach to what God is exactly would be metaphysical speculation, and unless God is everything you speculate it to be then odds are metaphysics is not going to be very truthful in augmenting your opinion.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The movie did not depict any sort of religious experience.

That's just the point. A mind can produce its own divine experiences.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

No one suggests giving up reason. It's the adherence to rationalism (Rationalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) that is questionable.

"that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge"(Audi 771).

What's the difference between reasoning and rationalism? I mean what you are displaying of God is not even reasoning because you are not applying truth to God and is therefore not very credible.

[Didymos Thomas]

I mean rationalism exists in a more mild sense, even to the point of intuitive thought, not necessarily critical Aristotelian stuff.

The conversation has been a little unruly, but I imagined we'd get here. This topic isn't easy no matter how we approach it - especially because I'm not trying to advocate any one particular view.

It's interesting you include intuition. It's that mix of intuition and reason that many theologians/philosophers have advocated. We can find the wildest extremes in religious thought. But most suggest a calm and mature mixture of intuition and reason as the tools to approach discussion of God.

Yeah I know that but thought, as to depicting the truth of something, relies heavily on rationalism.

Sometimes - but we have to be careful. This reliance on rationalism is a distinctively western trend. The reliance on rationalism has been especially strong in western Christianity, even though some of those who are seen as the great advocates of this rationalism incorporated blatantly mystic ideas into their philosophy. Islam and Judeaism also had bouts with stringent rationalism, though, these traditions were not nearly as strong as rationalism in western Christianity.

So, reliance on rationalism is not always characteristic of depicting truth. Paradox has often been used to express truth. I'd argue that the tradition of Paradox in expressing religious ideas has been, if not as common, more successful than the hardcore Aristotolean/Neoplatonic rationalism trends. Zen Buddhism often uses paradox to this very day, while hard core rationalism seems to have lost most of it's steam as far as religious practice is concerned.

Yeah it comes with being a high school student . When it comes to finding the truth you seem to feel for it in this case, not judge for it. I just happen to find potential in reason and you in emotion, its a matter of opinion in this case. Reasoning is acting or concluding upon premises and facts. Thinking does not imply the need for facts, is that what this is inferring to?
I mean if we looked at it that way then I really could accept that the Hindu god really is the true God without pondering the irrational implications of what kind of appearance is that. They got it wrong when they gave their God an appearance, which is a reflection of the mind, which through real thinking does not equate to me very well.

Life is learning.

I personally find value in reason and emotion. The metaphysical (reason) systems derived by theologians - these are often beautiful expressions of man's contemplation about life.
I also find value in the anti-rational approaches, like paradox - these are also beautiful expressions of man's contemplation. Often times the paradox and metaphysical thoughts are useful for personal meditation and reflection, which I think is key to spirituality.

Regarding the Hindu God - how can we say 'they got it wrong'? Discussion of God is not necessarily literal. The Trinity for example - some believe this is absolutely true, literal, others like myself tend to think the notion of the trinity is an expression of 'the divine reality' useful for contemplation, but not something to be accepted dogmatically. In my view, to really accept the trinity is to accept the truth of the doctrine and accept the inability of the doctrine to be complete - after all, the limited human cannot express the limitless.

Yes but if you want to waste your time just accepting God without reason then fine. It seems kind of useless to me though.

Well, I don't suggest that people accept or reject God as a matter of reason. Reason cannot prove nor disprove God, thus reason is not the proper tool for accepting or rejecting God. The notion of God may very well be of no use to you.

I mean what do you consider in introspective terms the difference between believing in God and not believing in God.

Choice of language.

No but it needs a cognitive process right?, of some sort.

Sure.

Well I doubt God would have a mind if it existed. Any approach to what God is exactly would be metaphysical speculation, and unless God is everything you speculate it to be then odds are metaphysics is not going to be very truthful in augmenting your opinion.

Any discussion of the approach to God, yes. Which is, essentially, my criticism of the adherence to rationalism.

That's just the point. A mind can produce its own divine experiences.

So?

What's the difference between reasoning and rationalism? I mean what you are displaying of God is not even reasoning because you are not applying truth to God and is therefore not very credible.

I'm not suggesting we throw reason out - only that language is not capable of expressing God in a logically coherent way where God is still meaningful.

[Holiday20310401]

Perhaps why people argue about God is because the idea (of whether something exists with no proof is) is permanent in the mind from the very beginning of one's conscious existence. Like the acceptance of God is programmed in the mind so one will be 100% stubborn about belief in what can't be proven. True or false from the very beginning and won't every change deep down for the rest of one's life. Thus that could be the nature of what can't be proven.

But it still comes back to the purpose of God. Any purpose of God is like a copy of what can be produced from the mind anyways, so why add that extra adherence? Because God is of introspect, fundamental, and irrelevant if physical.

The only use I can give for God is as a symbol to give an intuitive compilation of all meaning in the good of life. So instead of having to be logical about life one can just lullingly relate to the single instance in the mind (symbol) "God". So it is a matter of opinion again.

[SantaMonica1369]

Originally Posted by OntheWindowStand

\

It takes faith to be a atheist and there is more to it then lack of belief of god. Followers of atheism often try to convert people like other religions it hates other religions like other religions do. It holds many of the same characteristics of a religion "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." In the quotes is the definition of religion. Atheism concerns the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. It also has a moral code. It states no god which still falls under the second point of the definition as well. This is because ones disbelief in any god has identical effect on someone that might believe in a number of other "gods". And that effect is that it changes there way of living, thinking and their view on life.

It rather takes a lack of faith to be an athiest...DO NOT generalize that athiests try to convert others, or hate other religions, I am an athiest and I encourage my friends in their beliefs, whatever they may be, whether I share them or not. I don't necessarily want them to become athiests. I find athiesm rather less glamorous then religion. It does change our way of living, thinking, and our views on life, but not in the way you seem to be describing.