Notme2000
Frustration, nothing more, on a normal day, I am very open minded, to at least concider ideas presented to me.
To be human is well enough; I shan't ask more.
So in essence, the door is there for everyone to walk through, and we all have the chouce to walk through it. That theist friend of mine often says, there is but one truth, wether we get to it by athiesm or theism or anything in between, as long as we seek it, we do good. I will leave it with that quote.
A concept of which I am an advocate is simply known as a
greater sense of god, which refers to that alleged single truth to which people aspire. The common threads of religions and philosophies, common value assessments, and so forth. I actually have about 37 pages sitting aside (30 text + 7 notes) on the subject that awaits a rewrite, a setting to HTML and a posting at my unused Apple homepage. That's coming, but in the meantime, it seems that we have some common ground to work with. In essence, the door is there and open, but it's kind of like rose-colored glasses or, as an old [i}Garfield[/i] depicted,
Who's glasses are these? (Puts them on, sees cubist world.) Ah, Pablo Picasso's.
Various periods in religions end up being flash-photos of mass conscience, a summary of the state of common knowledge and superstition--an expression of the developing intellect of the human species.
In this sense, many religions are themselves obsolete, but religious ideas obviously are not. Finding that contemporary element and using it to whatever true and proper advantage it presents theoretically can only help humanity. The problem, obviously, is determining that true and proper advantage. For some, it's the elimination of homosexuals. For others, it's the elimination of other religions. We cannot honestly call these divisions 'twixt people advantageous. But we can note the human tendency to aspire toward what it considers a better condition, examine how religious ideas relate to that improvement, and thus determine the relevant parts of modern religion.
If, for instance, we take a look at Christian and post-Christian mysticism, we find that God looks much different than it does amid vulgar religion. There is, in fact, more to be achieved within the mystical vein than in the mundane. In that element, the Christian God becomes far more vague, considerably less defined. The "will of God" is not something that can be predicted as a character issue but something to be viewed in the allegorical at least. It's why, even among Abramic monotheists, you will find eminent scholars who will claim, as Karen Armstrong puts it, that God doesn't really exist but is still the most important reality in the world.
I hope you can believe me I have faced that problem more often than not in my time.
Of course I believe it. It's one of the reasons I wonder why all of these people, whom I have no other reason to doubt the sanity or intelligence of, focus so much on what seems to be insanity.
And it is a reflection of their own weaknesses
An important note 'twixt the rhetorical and the actual. I won't sully it with further comment.
I am really the only athiest I know that actually follows through with it.
A sterling summary which represents truth to many people, I think. Sad, that, how we react to our surroundings so vitally. I mean, stimulus-response is important, but at this level it's annoying. The extreme statement was that I found my fellow atheists to be just as religious in the justification of their worldview than the religious folk they so decried. No longer an atheist, I admit that part of the reason I see it so clearly is because it is a prominent failure of my own experience, and so I tend to watch for it in the world around me.
I would be inclined to agree. But I do not reject the idea of a god or other thiest ideas, just don't commit to them.
I won't quibble terms except to say that most agnostics I know back off that label when they read a dictionary definition. Nor should I include you in that label; it's just the first thing that comes to mind.
No kidding. The plethera of forums of 1000 pages of proving passages of the bible wrong seem trivial to me. Why not focus on the MEANING, which is so much more important.
I think the logical foundation of the Bible is fair game, given the amount of energy evangelical Christians give to asserting the logic of setting social policy according to the text. But it really does seem like a late-80's/early-90's psychological sweatshop, a bunch of people sitting around validating themselves over and over again until they dismiss their chosen problems as solved or no longer important. But I do think that staying down on that level only sets the point for the battle standards to wave, and fixes the issues of discussion at whatever divisive point has been selected. Even I have a hard time with the meaning of the Bible, since so much of what it says is downright bizarre, but that meaning is not necessarily apparent to the believers, so it's fair to say that proper sympathetic examination will shed some light on the meaning of the Bible and its implications.
I keep waiting for our atheists to get bored playing in the farm leagues, but it's a sunny day and it's baseball, so to speak ....
I could not stop laughing when I read that. I assure you, I am not that kind of athiest, but I really can't say why not. Even I would assume that, lol. But I am an avid reader (reading Brave New World by Aldous Huxley at the moment) and in fact, being swept away by emotion is my escape from the athiest life. It is letting down my guard to the unexplainable, so to speak. So I guess it does make sence.
That speaks wonderfully for itself. Further comment would damage your point. Though I will raise a glass to that.
But instead of looking at it as my most beautiful words and ideas were without place, I put it as my most beautiful words and ideas were without explanation, which made them all that much more beautiful.
A wonderful perspective. I ran into functional problems, though, communicating with my associates who happened to be atheistic. One would be expected to quantify beauty before speaking of its merits. All I could think was,
This is a step up?
The only patriotism I see as usefull is that of being members of the human race, not in an egotistical sort of way, an inspiring way.
Fair enough. I shan't split hairs. (e.g. nation/world) What you express, after all, is something I seek. Species before nation seems logical to me, but I won't go so far as to assign the process to you.
I would agree, but I think the reason most athiests are previous religious people is organized religion gets you while you're young.
True enough. But I'm also curious about the differences between those kinds of atheists.
That's just close-mindedness.
Says me, but you'll find out that very few people appreciate the authority that is quietly assigned when I say something. Oh, well, I suppose that's fair. I tend to think it's closed-minded, but nobody has answered me yet as to why an atheist should tell me what god is and therefore what I accept in order to disprove it. It seems a little too easy. Kind of like playing tic-tac-toe against yourself just to prove that the game can be won.
I agree. But to keep our beliefs equal, theists can be childish in certain circumstances as well.
Oh, of course. That's one of the things that's so funny about one of our posters trying to rename me, addressing responses to "Theists" (with a capital T). But it's kind of mean, so the human problem:
• Humans are amazing idiots sometimes. I don't get how they can read something and forget it so quickly when they wish to make a point. In my tenuous rant against Eminem, people have chosen a strange process of separation and reassignment. After all the bashing I've done of radio-pop, the Britneys, the Christina Aguileras, and so forth, an Eminem fan wishing to separate Eminem from that radio-pop crowd accuses me of being a fan of N'Sync, Backstreet, &c. There are a host of crappy bands the poster could have chosen from, but instead the first examples to mind should be held up despite a library of denunciation.
• Likewise, I wonder about our atheistic poster who referred to me as "Theists". I mean, if you take a look around, I'm not particularly popular among Sciforums' theists. I'm well-known for opposing infantile theism the same way I am known for opposing infantile atheism, the same way I am known for opposing infantile anything in the guise of intellectual discussion. So when the poster lumps me in with other theists, he is directly ignoring the fact that one of the reasons there are, in fact, so few Christians in these forums is in part because they've run into me. People seem to care about their reputations, but sack them when debating with me. So there have been plenty of sharp-tongued meanie Christians who have come and gone, and it's a shame our poster never noticed my opposition to many of my theist neighbors because of their religious paradigms.
Of course I know theists can be childish. In fact, I generally expect it. And I generally give them hell for it. But, more to the point, it seems that we do have a problem (childishness) a cause (religion/human psyche) and source material from which to begin constructing an antidote, so to speak. The childish result of both atheism and theism is that people tend to the symptoms and never attempt to cure the disease. Once that realization sets in the mind, intellectual maturity within the scope of religious paradigms becomes much easier and almost automatic.
I am really flattered. I think in principal, you and I have the same perspective, but from different standpoints. And I really hope there are more out there.
The debate between atheists and theists could, generally speaking, profit from your standpoint.
And about the seventh day thing, that sounds truly messed up. I would be interested in conversing with one!
It's a little scary. But I forget what the original point was. Oh yeah, committing to the lie. I think a couple of those conversations would demonstrate to you that most committing to the lie don't know it's a lie.
When I refer to athiest or theist, it is only to represent the fundamental point they are at in their seek for some form of truth, so you can identify with them. I realize how generalized it is as a word, so I ask that you take it only as a guide as to where to start on your view of the person in question.
I'm in.
But we might have to advertise that paragraph with blinking neon lights.
Please, elaborate, carefully though, lol. I would like to admit my mistakes where I feel they were mistakes so that we can continue this debate on an even purer level.
I'll answer that with a quick story.
• When I was a kid, my Dad tried to teach me various principles that accorded with his politics. Among those, we had many discussions about "labor" and "management". For years, a hard point between us was the conduct of the rich, the movers and shakers of the business community he was so enamoured with. But the last ... six or seven years, as such, have been hard on him in that community: his business partner essentially stabbed him in the back, his investment theories have proven disastrous to his long-term security, and now the Wall Street world is tumbling down. I saw him not too long ago, for the first time in a while, and he said to me, "I owe you an apology." I asked what for. He said he was mind-blown at the state of commerce and finance in the US, and he felt badly for his position in those old debates. I actually felt badly for him. I didn't want him to apologize. I didn't want him to admit another word. We see more things similarly now and have the rest of our lives to figure out what that means.
In that sense, I would hope that we can both accept that there is a world full of people, and accept that some of those histories do warrant the place we found ourselves at the beginning of the thread. Besides, I'm confused now as to where the humbling of the past starts and the more humble, progressive future begins. But that's my own problem to figure out.
don't see the point to destroying, eliminating, crushing, reducing, or otherwise diminishing a possibility, that's just closing doors. And eventually, like so many of these close minded athiests, you find yourself locked in a room.
To comment further would sully this point.
Well, thank ye.
a few factors, one of which being sitting with 2 thiest friends on MUSHROOMS! That will open you up to alternate ways of thinking. I swear for 3 hours I WAS A THIEST in it's purest form for 3 hours
Oh, I know that feeling well. The goddess comes out when I take the right mushrooms. And
nobody can break that sense of communion.
But I would worry about you if it
was enough to change you into a theist.
Many athiests claim athiesm is the ability to admit you are wrong and know nothing
The word
agnostic pings at my skull there ....
I greatly respect you for saying that. More often than not I admit I am wrong and the other party only sees that as an opportunity to prove my ignorance, when in fact, we are all ignorant somewhere or another. By admiting we are wrong we close in on those areas and diminish them.
Of the hundred places I could go from there, it would be best to wait until another discussion. This, as with other of your words, should not be commented on for fear of staining the principle you've expressed.
That can be very productive... Or completely destroy society as we know it.
The end of society as we know it
might be a productive result ....
And that leaves room for something purer then just insecurities. A rewarding practice indeed.
Amen!
Whoops. I mean,
Woo-hoo!
And as to the rest of it ... the validity of each belief is, indeed, valid, for even an identical belief to one held by someone else in the past is unique, bearing as its burden each moment of the individual's life that contributed to the belief's existence.
As to the other, I'll get to the four-hour conversation and its resulting post shortly. However, I need a cigarette ...
thanx,
Tiassa
