I think that god may exist, but it is improbable that he does. So in my thinking, I take the tentative stance of atheism. I act morally [as a theist would] and I socialise religiously [just like a theist]. I show deference to religious leaders, respect the faith of others [unless we happen to be in a discussion, which I avoid without prior consent], attend religious place and participate in religious ceremonies, etc. Like I said in my link, Why not? My atheism need not extend beyond my thought and my discussions, especially when this prevents potential harm [social reputation, attacks, etc] and yields some benefits [socialising, fun, etc] otherwise not available.
With a God like this, why did they need Satan?
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
I think that god may exist, but it is improbable that he does. So in my thinking, I take the tentative stance of atheism. I act morally [as a theist would] and I socialise religiously [just like a theist]. I show deference to religious leaders, respect the faith of others [unless we happen to be in a discussion, which I avoid without prior consent], attend religious place and participate in religious ceremonies, etc. Like I said in my link, Why not? My atheism need not extend beyond my thought and my discussions, especially when this prevents potential harm [social reputation, attacks, etc] and yields some benefits [socialising, fun, etc] otherwise not available.
There were two trees in the garden. One was the tree of Omniscience, the other, the tree of Omnipotence. To eat of them both would make man like a god, that is why it was forbidden.
Man has eaten of the one tree only, Omniscience. With each passing century, we gather and possess more and more knowledge. Our knowledge threatens to destroy us, as it outstrips our wisdom. Original Sin was not the inclination toward sin. Man is inclined toward holiness. It is a blemish and heinous propaganda from the churches of men, the evils of the nations, and the wicked corporations and corrupt media that make people believe they are inclined toward sin, THEY ARE NOT! Never believe that.
Original Sin is the knowledge of creativity, the knowledge of curiosity, the knowledge of consciousness. Original sin is not a sin, it is simply the knowledge of life. It is the knowledge of god. It is freedom and truth. There is a great responsibility that comes along with it however. It is separation from god. Humans must learn to control that power for themselves, or perish. The final days of testing now dawn.
People are inclined toward cooperation, not competition. They are inclined toward goodness, not evil. They are inclined toward hope, not despair. Do not believe all of these things humans do are hopeless, know that the actions ruling powers have promulgated across the earth and throughout all of the people's religion's are lies, all of them.
This last test will be the one. Will the bureaucracy and old science put man above the source field, thinking we don't need each other and consciousness, that love, truth, and beauty doesn't matter? Will money and power be humanities only truth? If so, the end of 2012 will be a holocaust the likes of which will make the end of WWII look like a day in the park.
Otherwise, if we allow love, truth and beauty be our guide, a new dawning of cooperation for humanity is soon to be a reality.
I asked - Do you act as if God exists, or do you act as if God doesn't exist?
You say you act morally or participate in religious ceremonies etc. - but you also say you do this for utilitarian reasons.
If you would act morally or participate in religious ceremonies etc. because you believe this would bring you closer to God or otherwise have something to do with God, then you would indeed be acting as if God exists.
But if you do some of the things that theists do, but you do them for utilitarian reasons, then you are acting as if God doesn't exist.
Mimicking theistic behavior but having decidedly non-theistic motivations for them doesn't mean you actually act as if God exists.
Perhaps if you keep up with what you've been doing, you might eventually see that it doesn't work, that it makes you unhappy, causes you internal strife, and that your atheism will sooner or later show also in your actions - in the sense that you won't be able to mimick theistic behavior anymore.
Ok, so I am a moral athiest who is open to the possiblity of god but acts as if he doesnt exist. I still follow my culture because of practical reasons.
That would happen only if I had moral issues with my faked charade of theistic social behaviour. BUt I dont. I am totally eclectic about this, if it works, if its good and if its not harmful to anyone, well then, do it, even if you may personally disagree.
What could lead to the problem you describe would be that I dont think of myself as an atheist and I dont converse as an atheist either. Since this is not the case, since my atheism is not completlely constrained, it is ok.
And even if I were unable to mimic theistic behaviour, so what? I need to do it only because I live in a religious world. If I were with like minded or open minded people [like I am here], I need not maintain the charade. I dont need them because they are good in themselves, if they truely are so, I would do them. But I certainly drop the non-useful theistic behaviours in situations where they are not needed [for eg.like in this conversation]. Such needed behaviours are the ones that are only practically useful in the presence of theists and I can do away with them without any issues in any situation where that need is gone.
Like I said, I am totally eclectic about this, I hold no value judgements on my mimicked theistic behaviour.
As I refine my philosophy, I can define myself better:
A tentative agnostic explict weak atheist.
Tentative - for now, possibly.
Agnostic - Not completely certain, but think of probality to be near non-existence.
Explict - I know god/s which theists claim to believe in.
Weak - I dont maintain that "there is no god".
Atheist - I disbelieve in god.
A tentative agnostic explict weak atheist.
Tentative - for now, possibly.
Agnostic - Not completely certain, but think of probality to be near non-existence.
Explict - I know god/s which theists claim to believe in.
Weak - I dont maintain that "there is no god".
Atheist - I disbelieve in god.
If you act as if God doesn't exist, then you're not open to the possibility that God exists.
If personal god is a creation of personal consciousness, and spinoza's god is a creation of source field consciousness. . . I don't see why not?
If you live in the United States of America, it is impossible to be a "moral atheist." No further discussion on that issue is necessary unless you do not understand why.
Well, I dont understand why not?
AAQ-
AAQ-
I don't judge anyoen persdonally, I just judge the arguments and often the Motives I see behind them. I also don't hold grudges.
However, I do wonder why we see Theism and Religion as the same thing. its not liek ATHEISM IS AC TUALLY THE OPOSITE OF rELIGION...THOUGH SOEM HERE DO DEFINE aRTHEISM AS A LACK OF rELOGIOSU BELEIFS. rELIGION IS NOT THE SAME RHING AS tHEISM IRRESPECTIVE THOUGH.
AAQ-
I don't judge anyoen persdonally, I just judge the arguments and often the Motives I see behind them. I also don't hold grudges.
However, I do wonder why we see Theism and Religion as the same thing. its not liek ATHEISM IS AC TUALLY THE OPOSITE OF rELIGION...THOUGH SOEM HERE DO DEFINE aRTHEISM AS A LACK OF rELOGIOSU BELEIFS. rELIGION IS NOT THE SAME RHING AS tHEISM IRRESPECTIVE THOUGH.
The drafters of the constitution were Deists, Christians, etc., all save one were fanatical Freemasons, which if you don't know, require a belief in a supreme deity to be a brother. Back then, American Freemasonry was relatively free of the disgusting Zionist and Jesuit infiltration which plagues the ranks of its brothers today, so the Illuminati tongue and cheek attitude toward God within the ranks was not so prevalent. The requirement was taken seriously in those days.
Thus if you are a serious scholar of the founding documents on which the nation is founded, and if you serious believe in the sovereign rights of the individual and the freedom of the individual human being, you would know, that the founders argued that these rights were natural rights, and so came from the fact of being born and were endowed by a creator, or were given by some universal source of intelligence.
It is argued, if atheists were ever to get control of government, then government would become despotic in nature. The rights of humanity are indeed are guaranteed are they not? But if a privileged moneyed and powerful elite could take the rights of humanity away, as rights are not vested in anything but the state, then freedom and liberty would disappear. Natural law does not exist if there is no source consciousness, or supreme will. Thus, a corporate, financial, and bureaucratic government elite, devoid of any "moral" or ethical grounding, any that is objective, beyond what is in their best interest, will end up enslaving the poor and middle classes of these united states.
Look familiar? :bugeye: Do you recognize a nation that is more and more rejecting a universal source field of consciousness, that lays out a subjective vision of ethical and moral framework for humanity? If there is none (an objective view), then sure, the elites of the world can tell us all that morality and ethics are subjective. Meanwhile the prisons will be filled with colored minorities, while the rich white criminals steal billions of dollars and get prison sentences of months. . . .
Moral Atheist? Yeah, right. W/E Right along with the Frugal Kings and Well fed poor.
If you are moral, have compassion, and believe in a system of universal justice and cosmic harmony. . . it doesn't matter whether you call it god, karma or good parenting, it's just knowing what is right, and what is wrong. Some will call it love, some will call it god. But that is what gives a man the right to speak his truth, love whom he wants, and pursue his dreams.
In an atheist state. . . they will tell you that this is your privilege, not your right. Only in a universe with a "creator" is this your right. I'm sorry I can't explain a hundred years of political philosophy better and why the united states of america was founded. But if you want an atheist nation where rights are granted to you as privileges, and that's just fine with you, you have Canada, Australia, and all of Europe to choose from. That is what parliamentary democracies are supposed to be for. Not a constitutional republic that has put it's faith in the natural rights of mankind.
On a side note. . . the last two Presidents that actually believed in a higher power were Kennedy and Reagan.
If they believe in a higher power, the Atheists go after them with a gun. It's why my friends and I don't think Dr. Paul will ever get into office. And if he does, expect gun play.
If they believe in a higher power, the Atheists go after them with a gun. It's why my friends and I don't think Dr. Paul will ever get into office. And if he does, expect gun play.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I answered both 'atheist' and 'agnostic' on your poll.
Agnostic, not because I'm uncertain exactly, but because I don't have any way of knowing what are supposedly transcendent things. And atheist, because I'm reasonably certain that the gods of the major religions don't literally exist.
I agree. The crudeness of some of the old testament depictions of the Hebrew deity kind of suggest an ancient tribal chieftain in a rather barbarous culture. Not a transcendent supreme being.
Whatever cosmic mysteries might ultimately underlie or explain reality (and I certainly don't deny their possibility), I don't think that the Bible contains very much of value concerning them.
Agnostic, not because I'm uncertain exactly, but because I don't have any way of knowing what are supposedly transcendent things. And atheist, because I'm reasonably certain that the gods of the major religions don't literally exist.
I agree. The crudeness of some of the old testament depictions of the Hebrew deity kind of suggest an ancient tribal chieftain in a rather barbarous culture. Not a transcendent supreme being.
Whatever cosmic mysteries might ultimately underlie or explain reality (and I certainly don't deny their possibility), I don't think that the Bible contains very much of value concerning them.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
See the infamous episode at 1Samuel 15, in which God is supposed to have commanded the Hebrews to completely exterminate the Amelekites: to kill men, women, children, even their animals, and to leave nothing alive.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1 Samuel&c=15&t=NKJV
Joshua 6:17 tells us that when Jericho was taken, its population was totally exterminated, except for those found in a brothel which had sheltered some earlier Hebrew messengers.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jos&c=6&v=1&t=NKJV
Deuteronomy 20:16 gives us what amount to the ancient Hebrews' rules of military engagement and clearly tells us that total genocide was commanded by God against all of the inhabitants in lands that the Hebrews felt that their God had promised them.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Deu&c=20&v=16&t=NKJV
Other charming Biblical passages have God ordering that daughters who have premarital sex be stoned, that Jews who leave Judaism be killed, and similar things.
I think that this stuff is extremely problematic for those modern Jews and Christians who simultaneously want to condemn practices like these as savage and barbaric, but still hold tightly to the doctrines of Biblical authority and inerrancy, and to the idea that the Bible is somehow the ultimate "Good Book".