If theism stands and falls with theists ...

[wynn]

But you don't?
Yes or No is much simpler than the one you provided.

My situation doesn't seem simple to me.

And yes, I think the answer I provided - "I think I should believe in God" - seems accurate to me.

But I'm sure we can work out a code to pin point your exact position, without too much complication.

Okay.

 

[wynn]

You seem to have missed the fact that it was our discussion of deism that contextualized my comments. Because deists reject divine revelation, they necessarily believe that religion is a man-made phenomenon. So there goes your theory that only an atheist could say such things.

We have already discussed deism and how I think deism is a form of atheism.

I've been exploring perspectives with you in a reasonable and respectful manner so far. Are you purposefully trying to ruin our dialogue?

Rav playing big brother again?

 

[Jan Ardena]

My situation doesn't seem simple to me.

And yes, I think the answer I provided - "I think I should believe in God" - seems accurate to me.




Okay.

So you're an atheist.

I just needed to know the reason.
Now I understand why you see theists in the way you do.

thanks
jan.

 

[wynn]

So you're an atheist.

From a theist's perspective, I am probably an atheist, yes.
But from the perspective of many atheists, I am not an atheist.

Now I understand why you see theists in the way you do.

So why do I?

 

[Jan Ardena]

From a theist's perspective, I am probably an atheist, yes.
But from the perspective of many atheists, I am not an atheist.

So why do I?

1. Does it really matter what atheists think, regarding your belief, or not, of God?

2. Because you don't like them (at the moment)?

jan.

 

[Rav]

We have already discussed deism and how I think deism is a form of atheism.

Deists believe in the existence of an intelligent creator god, who may or may not occasionally interact with it's creation. Calling it a form of atheism is, quite simply, absurd.

 

[wynn]

Deists believe in the existence of an intelligent creator god, who may or may not occasionally interact with it's creation. Calling it a form of atheism is, quite simply, absurd.

Someone who believes that religion is all man-made, is an atheist.

 

[wynn]

1. Does it really matter what atheists think, regarding your belief, or not, of God?

It does matter, as far as informing my choice of whom to associate with is concerned.

2. Because you don't like them (at the moment)?

I've never been fond of them.

 

[Rav]

Someone who believes that religion is all man-made, is an atheist.

Unless they are a deist, and a deist is not an atheist.

What is it with you and your need to redefine well established terminology? You realize that all it achieves is disruption to what might otherwise be more fruitful discussion, right?

 

[Jan Ardena]

It does matter, as far as informing my choice of whom to associate with is concerned.




I've never been fond of them.

1. no it doesn't

1. that explains alot


thanks
jan

 

[Balerion]

So do I.

I suppose there is the statistically rare occurence of people indeed having personal revelation from God that gives them everything they need so they can function apart from organized religion.

My point was that even those who claim to be spiritual rather than religious are not coming to this conclusion through any kind of personal revelation, but as a reaction to established faiths. Kind of like how atheism could not exist without theism, the theists without dogma could not exist without the existence of organized religion. Maybe there are people who believe that they've seen God (though you'll notice what and who they "see" depends on the faith they know best. A lax Christian will one day get a "revelation" from Jesus, but you never of him dropping in on a Hindu or Muslim) but I tend to view those people in the same light I view those who claim to have seen a UFO. It's all about desire, and, typically, gullibility.

But setting all one's hopes on receiving such personal revelation ... I mean - what does one do in the meantime? What if it takes decades to receive one? How does one get through potentially decades of uncertainty about what one should do with one's life (given that one believes that the meaning of one's life is to be defined with a personal revelation from God)?

I have a sense that you're writing autobiographically here. In any case, of what use is the constant paranoia? You (or the hypothetical person we're speaking of) know the difference between right and wrong. You don't need a scripture to tell you that. You know who you are--and if you don't, then you're not alone, but certainly there is no more shallow pursuit than the one for someone to tell you who you are.

In other words, you can function without a personal god. That you haven't had this revelation yet simply means you're too smart for it.

Although, granted, spiritual pursuits seem to be build on a paradox:
One the one hand, we have to find our own way. On the other hand, we realize we can't really find our own way on our own.
We have to be self-sufficient, yet dependent.
Fast, yet slow.
Thorough, yet not being carried away by particularities.

Again, this is only when viewed through the lens of established religion. Theists are free to ascribe any traits they like to this present and involved god, so long as the god remains present and involved. There are always going to be intellectual inconsistencies within theism, but the ones you have listed are dogmatic, and do not apply to you absent some organizational faith.

The shortest I can answer this is that I think I should believe in God.

No one asked you for the shortest answer you can give. Please, expand upon this.

 

[Balerion]

I don't know. It seems that there are plenty of people who have compiled a "Best Of Religion" mix tape based on what they've been exposed to (with a few original compositions included as bonus tracks).

Yes, absolutely. I should clarify: I didn't mean individuals couldn't come to some kind of similar conclusion, only that it wasn't possible on a societal scale. Or maybe I should say it isn't likely. If enough people have their own definition of god, eventually several are going to find recurrent themes (especially considering that they are all based on existing religions anyway) and--boom--you have a religion.

 

[wynn]

What is it with you and your need to redefine well established terminology? You realize that all it achieves is disruption to what might otherwise be more fruitful discussion, right?

No, it makes one possible to begin with.

If mere dictionary definitions would resolve anything, then troubled people would reach for dictionaries, as opposed to sleeping pills, guns, knives, cakes, or aggressive discussion strategies.

 

[wynn]

It does matter, as far as informing my choice of whom to associate with is concerned.

1. no it doesn't

What? You don't care who the people are that you associate with?

1. that explains alot

I think it is perfectly in place to have high expectations of some people: the more extraordinary someone's claim, the higher are the justified expectations one has of that person.

 

[wynn]

My point was that even those who claim to be spiritual rather than religious are not coming to this conclusion through any kind of personal revelation, but as a reaction to established faiths. Kind of like how atheism could not exist without theism, the theists without dogma could not exist without the existence of organized religion. Maybe there are people who believe that they've seen God (though you'll notice what and who they "see" depends on the faith they know best. A lax Christian will one day get a "revelation" from Jesus, but you never of him dropping in on a Hindu or Muslim) but I tend to view those people in the same light I view those who claim to have seen a UFO. It's all about desire, and, typically, gullibility.

Perhaps. I've never been someone much in favor of mystery, quite the opposite, but these days, I am becoming more inclined to appreciate it.

I think organized religion downplays the role of mystery - presents life, the Universe and everything in a matter-of-factly, "there's no mystery" manner.
I think though that even though they may be correct in their claims, I don't think that "there's no mystery" is a good attitude. It's so easy to presume too much. And then it's oh, how the mighty have fallen.

I have a sense that you're writing autobiographically here. In any case, of what use is the constant paranoia? You (or the hypothetical person we're speaking of) know the difference between right and wrong. You don't need a scripture to tell you that. You know who you are--and if you don't, then you're not alone, but certainly there is no more shallow pursuit than the one for someone to tell you who you are.

In other words, you can function without a personal god. That you haven't had this revelation yet simply means you're too smart for it.

Awww, JDawg getting all soft and mushy?

Again, this is only when viewed through the lens of established religion. Theists are free to ascribe any traits they like to this present and involved god, so long as the god remains present and involved. There are always going to be intellectual inconsistencies within theism, but the ones you have listed are dogmatic, and do not apply to you absent some organizational faith.

Actually, I've been reading Roadsigns: On the Spiritual Path--Living at the Heart of Paradox. The book is organized around the idea how spiritual pursuits are paradoxical. I think the author makes some good points, and I can relate well to what he is talking about.

No one asked you for the shortest answer you can give. Please, expand upon this.

I indeed think I should believe in God.
I tend to identify with Camus' stance - Although he considered himself an atheist, Camus later came to tout the idea that the absence of religious belief can simultaneously be accompanied by a longing for "salvation and meaning". This line of thinking presented an ostensible paradox and became a major thread in defining the idea of absurdism in Camus' writings.
I am not religious, nor spiritual, but I would say I do have a "longing for salvation and meaning" that ordinary worldly pursuits do not satisfy.

 

[Balerion]

Perhaps. I've never been someone much in favor of mystery, quite the opposite, but these days, I am becoming more inclined to appreciate it.

I think organized religion downplays the role of mystery - presents life, the Universe and everything in a matter-of-factly, "there's no mystery" manner.
I think though that even though they may be correct in their claims, I don't think that "there's no mystery" is a good attitude. It's so easy to presume too much. And then it's oh, how the mighty have fallen.

You say this, and yet you refuse to accept the fact that religion's initial purpose was to demystify a deeply mysterious world. Don't you find it telling that Bronze Age man believed he knew everything there was to know about the world? Nobody would make that claim today, even religious people, because science has raised so many questions that aren't so easily reducible to "Because God made it so."

Knowing now that you're a seeker rather than a theist, it's pretty clear that you're afraid of admitting that religion is just a feeble attempt at philosophy because of what that implies. But fear is never a good rationale for an intellectual position. I think you should reconsider.

And do not think I missed the Hitcherhiker's Guide reference in there!

Awww, JDawg getting all soft and mushy?

I didn't necessarily intend to be complimentary. I'm just trying to tell why you I think you can't quite bring yourself to believe.

Actually, I've been reading Roadsigns: On the Spiritual Path--Living at the Heart of Paradox. The book is organized around the idea how spiritual pursuits are paradoxical. I think the author makes some good points, and I can relate well to what he is talking about.

Haven't read that, so its reference really doesn't help me understand how these paradoxes exist outside of organized religion. Could you shorthand it for me?

I indeed think I should believe in God.
I tend to identify with Camus' stance - Although he considered himself an atheist, Camus later came to tout the idea that the absence of religious belief can simultaneously be accompanied by a longing for "salvation and meaning". This line of thinking presented an ostensible paradox and became a major thread in defining the idea of absurdism in Camus' writings.
I am not religious, nor spiritual, but I would say I do have a "longing for salvation and meaning" that ordinary worldly pursuits do not satisfy.

What do you need salvation from? And how does the presence of a god provide it? I'm also struggling to understand how eternal life has inherent meaning, or how ephemeral life does not. I've asked you these questions before only to have you ignore them, but I think they should be vitally important to you, because you can't really believe that you need spiritual salvation and meaning if you can't say what that means, or how this "otherworldly" presence provides it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What? You don't care who the people are that you associate with?




I think it is perfectly in place to have high expectations of some people: the more extraordinary someone's claim, the higher are the justified expectations one has of that person.

Why/how should/could I direct ''care'' to just that?

If one is a caring person, then ''care'' is written into ones character, and personality, and constantly expressed in your waking moments, not just some conditional phenomenon one whips out at will.


jan.


jan.

 

[Balerion]

jan.


jan.

Christ, there are two of you?

 

[wynn]

You say this, and yet you refuse to accept the fact that religion's initial purpose was to demystify a deeply mysterious world. Don't you find it telling that Bronze Age man believed he knew everything there was to know about the world? Nobody would make that claim today, even religious people, because science has raised so many questions that aren't so easily reducible to "Because God made it so."

Knowing now that you're a seeker rather than a theist, it's pretty clear that you're afraid of admitting that religion is just a feeble attempt at philosophy because of what that implies. But fear is never a good rationale for an intellectual position. I think you should reconsider.

Actually, I am after a more sophisticated version of religion:
how to be humble, yet ambitious,
how to know, yet continue to seek knowledge,
how to be kind, but not stupid,
how to be proud of one's attainment, but not vain,
how to be self-sufficient, and yet depend on others.

I think that at least some religions have room for such an approach. Even if perhaps there aren't that many members practicing the religion that way.

And do not think I missed the Hitcherhiker's Guide reference in there!

Of course.

I didn't necessarily intend to be complimentary. I'm just trying to tell why you I think you can't quite bring yourself to believe.

Thank you for your input, but I don't agree with it.

Haven't read that, so its reference really doesn't help me understand how these paradoxes exist outside of organized religion. Could you shorthand it for me?

Just read the introduction and the index, they are available in the Amazon preview and at google books.

What do you need salvation from?

Suffering, in its various forms.

And how does the presence of a god provide it?

If we go by the usual definitions of "God" (the Supreme Person, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, the Source of All, the One Without Whom Nothing Can Happen), then clearly, God is the one to turn to in all one's problems.

I'm also struggling to understand how eternal life has inherent meaning, or how ephemeral life does not. I've asked you these questions before only to have you ignore them, but I think they should be vitally important to you, because you can't really believe that you need spiritual salvation and meaning if you can't say what that means, or how this "otherworldly" presence provides it.

There is simply a thirst for "more." It's not necessarily possible to articulate it, but it exists, as a persistent craving, a persistent sense of "not enough," a persistent desire, longing for more.
One thing I've noticed is that trying to articulate this "longing for more" is an ongoing process, on a daily basis, and one that cannot be neatly pinned down. One may come up with a formulation that seems totally definitive today, only to have it shattered the week after that, and a week later a new formulation appears in one's mind. And so on.

 

[wynn]

Why/how should/could I direct ''care'' to just that?

If one is a caring person, then ''care'' is written into ones character, and personality, and constantly expressed in your waking moments, not just some conditional phenomenon one whips out at will.

I'm not sure how this relates to what we were talking about?

1. Does it really matter what atheists think, regarding your belief, or not, of God?

It does matter, as far as informing my choice of whom to associate with is concerned.

1. no it doesn't

You don't care whether the person with whom you are associating with is a theist or not?
You don't care what the person with whom you are associating with believes about God, and about your belief in God?

Would you be friends with a person who believes that your belief in God is delusional or wrong?