Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
How far is an atheist from god ?
How far is an atheist from god ?
There can exist no atheist without at least one believing in god. Atheist act as if they are free from a god created universe but they are not free at all.
In fact they are just one of the poles on the same magnet. Equidistant from a god that resides in the center.
To be free from god is to be free from aetheism.
To utter a single discourse against a god made universe is to be placed on the magnet and be linked to god again.
There is an experience of this human life beyond aetheism and god one more pure and original untainted by all of man's discourse.
Can you attain it ?
How far is an athiest from god ?
NOT VERY FAR. :winkc:
Good Day ...
There can exist no atheist without at least one believing in god. Atheist act as if they are free from a god created universe but they are not free at all.
In fact they are just one of the poles on the same magnet. Equidistant from a god that resides in the center.
To be free from god is to be free from aetheism.
To utter a single discourse against a god made universe is to be placed on the magnet and be linked to god again.
There is an experience of this human life beyond aetheism and god one more pure and original untainted by all of man's discourse.
Can you attain it ?
How far is an athiest from god ?
NOT VERY FAR. :winkc:
Good Day ...
0
Comments
Personally, I prefer the notion of living a-theistically, i.e without taking any deity into the equation because whatever it may be, it is an unknown.
I agree. The term 'atheist' is meaningless and unnecessary without strong support for its opposition. I presume none of us believe in alchemy or astrology? So we do not call ourselves non-astrologers. Perhaps if 90 percent of the population believed in astrology, we would be forced to give ourselves such a title.
We are not free from the universe, we are the universe. Neither are atheists or any others free from the 'effects' of others believing in such a god created universe.
That is a paradox. "To be free from a hangover is to be free from sobriety."
I can say with absolutely certainty that every atheist would disagree with such a comment as they do not believe in a god deeming the statement meaningless.
Unless of course God does not exist. If I talk about Santa Clause and my disbelief in his magic reindeer, I am not somehow linked to him.
Herein lies the problem with your thesis. Atheism is not a belief system. It is not something to "go beyond". How can it be? It is simply an antithesis to a common position held by the majority of the world. It requires no faith or no politcal leaning, morality or anything. It is simply the lack of something.
Again, how far is the non-Santaist away from Santa? The statement just doesn't make sense.
The only reason atheism has received so much attention, is because of people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitches. Though it's really nothing new. Mark Twain was quite well set in his ways of atheism mostly due to his views on the abhorrence of slavery. There's George Carlin of course as well and probably some Inquisition victims no doubt too.
Sharpen your pencil and scratch your head you are light years away from where my finger is pointing. Keep at it.
"Live long and prosperous"
Good Day ...
You puzzle me.
No doubt your logic is sharp .. very sharp.
Why do you show up at a budhism site site yielding such logic ?
What do you expect to see ? Truth ?
It's like showing up to study the internal structure of bacteria with your eyeball instead of an electron microscope. You will see nothing.
Go out and look at the stars .. jump into cold water .. chisel a stone ... look deeply into the eyes of those you love. Don't think just look. Take a long walk on the coldest night of the year. Sit all night on your front lawn while others all sleep. Just sit. Just listen. Just feel.
This is where the truth you seek lies .. not in dry logic and fact.
At least take this to heart from a man hitting middle age whose pencil tip is starting to get round and dull.
I enjoy very much your post.
Good Day ...
I would have you know that I enjoy taking walks everynight. Through the woods and looking at the stars. I too am in awe of the great spectacle of stars and planets and the unknown. There is a certain mystery about it. But I just don't see how any god could fit into it.
And also, the philosophy obsessed, dissatisfied logician that I display myself as here is not the person I am in real life.
Though I speek with a certain sense of affluence and well-spokenness to friends, I am a happy person who enjoys frequent parties and baseball. I have lots of friends and rarely bring up religion or philosophy to them.
It's only when I'm by myself and sit for hours thinking, reading, and writing that I come close to resembling the person I am on here.
A non santaist is as far from a santaist as an atheist is from god and both are miles from the truth. They are both opposites thinking which is far less then pure perception.
Ohh we are all much more then we appear here. Cheers.
Good Day ...
Palzang
Coming from a somewhat more Zen position than many people here, I offer this.
Suzuki Roshi once said Zen can be summed up in two words: Not Always So.
Knight, I disagree with you on the nature of theism, but you are dead right when you ask why should you not use logic here. I read in Sharon Begley's new book that HH the Dalai Lama used a telescope to look at the moon, and saw that rocks on the moon cast shadows. Since it was a tenet of his belief that the moon casts light much like the sun, it was conflict of faith when he discovered that the moon merely reflects light. His response?
To change the belief.
In my readings, I have found many places which say that Buddhism is a logical system of thought. Try it, experiement with it, see if it works. Yes there is the Zen notion of "Don't Know Mind," but that does not mean that they take things "on faith."
I believe in God myself, although I am pretty vague on what kind of God I believe in.
Where have I gone wrong about theism? I find the concept of god to be as compatible with this universe as I do Santa (practicing non-santaist) or all the other obsolete gods that society does not worry about anymore. (Poseidon, Thor, Zeus?)
I would warrant that it is not the god of the Bible? Not the one of barbarism and butchery who would stone people of inquiry and different sexual orientations but at the same time claim to be a god of love? I would warrant even the most devout of religious in the West don't believe in this kind of god.
For thousands of years, people have worshiped thousands of different gods at the same time. Over time, that number has decreased to just one. I might suspect that we are growing increasingly closer to coming to the exact, true number.
Logic is important, but it can only go so far. Logic without a heart is worse than useless, it is dangerous. Hitler is a good example of logic carried to an extreme with no compassion. The trust one places in a teacher, however, is how one breaks through the limitations of logic and dualistic analysis.
Palzang
I don't not worship the god of the Bible. There are plenty of stories of god's compassion in both the Greek (Christian) and Hebrew (Jewish) scriptures. And there is the other stuff, the stuff you mentioned as well.
I worship a god I cannot describe, because once I do have have made this god captive to my own image of who I think He (and of course he is a He, right?) is. This does tend ot make faith a bit dicier, because I often dont have a solid leg to stand on, but it tends to keep god alive for me.
As to Santa/God, I find honest automechanics to be irrelevent, because I like to bike. That does not mean they do or do not exist. I think you may be making the same kind of mistake about too closely defining god in your own image. This is a bit complicated, but once you make absolute statements about god, either positive or negative, you have posited YOUR subjective experience onto a segment of possible reality that is much bigger than either you or I can apprehend with our senses or experience or even our rational thought processes.
As you said, "I find the concept of god to be as compatible with this universe as I do Santa..." which I take to be a personal statement. I can easily say, Well, I find (fill in the blank)" and we can have a neat little argument about what we both find to be true, which does not guarantee that either of us is right.
After years of a firm evangelical faith, I find (those magical words) that I dont know a lot. You may well be right. Or not.
I still pray with patients, who take great comfort that god is with them during their suffering. I dont really know who I am praying to, but I find that prayer "works." (Which does not mean that people are cured, or that any type of miracles occur--just that they can cope with their suffering, and even their immenent death a bit better.
You could abbreviate that to "You PIS!"
Palzang
I have nothing against logic or science .. I am a scientist education wise .. I still study the world as a scientist but there are other ways to know the world. Buddhism is another way.
Young people today study logic .. math .. empiracal science .. statistics .. this is not bad ... I studied it too .. the mistake is to think this is the only way to percieve the world. It is natural for young people to cling to this way of seeing the world ... and the more you are familiar with it the more you cling to it after all you know it well and it works and it's exciting. Buddhism requires a mind before thinking .. it is not proven it is experienced. Like I bring you to the edge of a pool and showing you water on a hot day and telling you jump in it will cool you. If you never seen a pool how do you know a pool is cooling ? You must jump in but you must take your clothes off. No ???
Science and religion both study the same world .. the same universe .. and should end in the same place but from different perceptions. If they don't jive in the end something is not right .. either in the science or religion and as knight and the buddha suggest should be held in suspect.
Look at it this way .. an X ray and a CAT scan are both different test and the results look different. They may both detect a broken bone but in a different way. Understand ? The pool is cool when you jump in and it is cool when you calculate the thermodynamics but to understand the thermodynamics is not knowing the pool like jumping in.
A doctor may send a patient for multiple test to understand a brain tumor not one test .. this is not because one test is bad and the others good. If so why not send you for the best test ? Each test is different in what it tells the doctor about the tumor.
Sick people don't like to go for so many test .. it is a pain in the ass but we sometimes must to get an all around experience of what is going on with this this thing we call a tumor. Unless the doctor is a crook then he sends you for many test.
So it is with this thing we call a universe. Science and religion tell us about the same universe but give us different perceptions of it. We make a mistake when we think religion is all old outdated nonsense .. it's like turning off the X ray machine and saying .. forget it it's old junk. An x ray machine may well be old junk some day and good thing who needs the radiation but world religions are not old junk.
Still some are not clear ... and maybe some no good at all .. Christiananity I think needs some dusting off and a good make over and then I'd bet it would reveal some good perceptions. Maybe the same as Buddhism ? People may not wait for this to happen we may see new religions. Maybe one that will hybridize with science just as electronics is hybridizing making your TV .. computer and telephone all one unit so you can hear .. see and calculate all different perceptions at your fingertips.
Then their will be no problem teaching religion in school because no one will even know what religion and science are in the first place .. it will all be in the past you see ? Still the survival of both may depend on each other ...
Good Day .. :mullet: :tongue2:
You write like a person just standing there, smiling, and chatting. I'm glad when you do that, rather than pretending nobody cares what others think.
It's just kinda nice when people have something a just a little bit mischievous to say to people who seem to be a bit too preoccupied with something else...
BTW, How far is God from an Atheist? (If that makes any sense, that is.)
Best of Regards,
Nirvy
Good Day ...
Oh. My. Frickin'. God.
Celebrin found someone to hug him.
Signs and wonders, my friends.
Signs and wonders
-bf
You're living up to your avatar, bf!
Palzang
But what sorta god are you talking about?
What sorta 'Exist' are you talking about?
As without the concept of bad there can be no good. The atheist arises with the theist, thus they are inseparably co-joined. With God as the object, the opposite is therefore no God. Theism is a linguistic description of the belief therein (of God).
Because to believe in God one has strayed into metaphysics (As Simon pointed out) the question becomes one of faith. The atheist then has to have faith in his belief that there is no God just as the theistic believer needs genuine faith to believe in his God. This places the believer and the non-believer in the same position in relation to the strength of their belief. I think that belief is the force of the magnet that will allow one to be attracted closer to or further from the centre.
Well said, but slightly flawed. Allow me to switch a few words....
I don't believe in Santa personally, and I would suspect that you don't either. Do you really need to have faith to disbelieve in something? I don't believe there is a boogeyman in my closet either, and that requires no faith whatsoever. Or for that matter, the garden fairies...etc....
If there were not so many people that made such a big deal out of whether or not one believes in something called a god, not so many people would refer to themselves as atheists. I believe in the natural world, and I'm skeptical of anything beyond that. I am, of course, not impossible to convince and I'm willing to entertain the possibility from time to time
Only one small crit.: "metaphysics" is not "Santaphysics".
Ah, but I'm sure that given several thousand years in the study of Santa's magical ways, his omniscient nature, his elves, and his naughty lists, we could make a pretty decent sized semester course at school.
The way I see it:
Everyone is trying to understand the world around us.
Some believe the answer to everything is an invisible being in the sky.
Some discard that belief and wish to find their own original answers to life.
To say that the later are somehow stuck within the beliefs of the first group is pretty arrogant, and would only be said by one who was stuck in the first group.
You can't throw all Atheists into a single group and imagine that they are all angry anti-religious people.
I am an Atheist.
If the belief in God suddenly disappeared world-wide, I would simply be a human.
True, the title "Atheist" is only alive because of so many believing in God, but that does not in any way mean that Atheists are stuck playing the same game as Theists.
OK .. you are and atheist .. I study science and other things but I am not any of those things .. I am a human. Are you a human or an aetheist ? Why must you be what you think ?
You clearly admit my point as valid yet you back peddle your way out. It is like a game of volley ball between two players .. when one player quits the game is over. The general populus is stuck in the game and most are not even aware of it.
While the battle rages the real experience is being lost. So much is going to waste.
Good Day ...
:buck::buck::buck:
I'm confused. What exactly is being disagreed upon here? Where does the battle "rage?"
I've read this over several times but cannot find any flaw in it. I think even theists can agree to it.
Like I've said, there was a time when everyone believed (reasonably so for the time) that the Earth was the center of the Universe. It became a necessity for Galileo to distinguish himself from the crowd because obviously he knew better. Perhaps had the debate lasted for centuries or millennia, "Heliocentrist" would be a common title on the nonbelievers. But alas, no sane person would suggest a "Geocentrist" view anymore, so both terms have become a thing of history.
In a thousand years, the same might be said of atheism and theism. The terms will be meaningless.
Wait. The Earth...isn't...the center of the Universe?!
:winkc:
(OneSunTemple) I am a human that declares himself an Atheist. An Atheist is somebody that doesn't believe in a God or Gods. I don't believe in a God or Gods, therefore, when need be, I define myself by that term. Declaring yourself an Atheist doesn't force you into any sort of standard - every Atheist has different opinions and beliefs.
Does "Vegetarian" become a meaningless term without carnivores?
How close is a vegetarian to a carnivore?
While there are many vegetarians in the animal kingdom, I am pretty sure all animals besides humans are Atheists...and they know nothing of Theists. Does that make them closer to God somehow? I would think not.
What battle? I am fighting no battles. I don't believe in God...end of story.
What experience is being lost? I experience the universe every day of my life, and don't see a need for a God or Gods.
Other animals are not atheist .. unless these animals ponder god or no god while they look for something to eat. A highly unlikely scenario !!!
If you are making the case that an animal is .. just is what it is atheism does no apply. There is no atheism in the momement. Atheism is not in the momement it is the continuation of a long drawn out religous rift between men of religion some of which have become known as the great scientist.
So ... I say .. when you state you are an atheist you are taking your place as a link in a long chain of religous discourse and so are not far from the "God" issue. Yes you do not belive in God but you are not disconnected either .. and NOT free from a "God" universe that you so try to escape.
So when someone inquires to you "Do you belive in .. " .. you say "Ohh no I am an atheist." .. the debate is once again invoked and you take your place on one side of the "God debate".
It's not that simple to free oneself and my comments are not "cute and witty" but very subtle. To be frr from the God universe is to drop atheism completely all you have done is switched sides.
Cheers ...
One form of atheist is the person (or animal) that doesn't believe in God simply because they are not aware of the idea. Of course they would not consider themselves to be atheists because they wouldn't be aware of that either. If I forgot all about the god/not god debate I would still be an atheist but then it wouldn't really mater to me at all, would it? Maybe this is the point you are making, I'm not sure.
Also, when someone asks the question "do you believe in..." the rest of the question may not have anything to do with God. I am an atheist--but I believe in a lot of other things.
How can you escape a "God Universe" or the universe itself to begin with? Atheists do not try to escape the universe, they simply don't see the need to acknowledge any master guiding force behind it all. They have no choice but to be an active member in it. If there is no God, there cannot be a God universe. Rather, there are simply those who believe in god(s) and those like me who don't. Yes, I take a position. Either you believe in God, don't believe in God, or just don't know.
What is so bad about choosing a side here?
Yeah .. if a culture or the collective consciousness of that culture never had a significant need to create a "creator God" then you would be free from atheism and see the world from a different perception. Not that it would not matter to you but you would not be an atheist .. period. In .. western culture the need for a creator God has been and still is very strong and so can we really escape it by taking an intellectual stance of atheism ? So the "God universe" is not simply in a book it's in the framework of our own consciousness.
KOB aked "How can you escape a "God Universe" or the universe itself to begin with?"
Where really resides the universe ? Is it inside of us .. outside or both ?
( Ohh .. I meant the "...." in the above post to mean God or .. bad short hand on my part. "Do you belive in God " .. you say "Ohh no I am an atheist." .. the debate is once again invoked and you take your place on one side of the "God debate". )
Good Day ..
Cheers ...
Wow...what you view as "Atheism", I view as anti-religious.
You are confusing the millions of Atheists World-wide with the few anti-religious. There is a huge difference.
I don't believe in God.
I'm not trying to escape from anything.
I am not the result of any long drawn-out process.
Atheists have been around as long as religion has...and even before.
Why is it that you think all Atheists are fighting against the belief in God?
I have absolutely no problem with the belief in God...
I just don't. Why does it have to be any more complicated than that.
I see no reason to believe in God.
I don't care if other people do, I just don't.
You are acting as though Atheism is a religion. What is there to "drop"?
Let's make this extremely simple:
I don't see why you are adding so much more to the definition.
Being an Atheist doesn't mean you have to debate Theists, or fight against Theists, or anything like that.
With or without religion I would still be an Atheist.
If every single religion on this planet disappeared, and there was no more belief in a "higher being", then I would STILL be an Atheist.
Do you believe in Ra? No? Then you are an "Atheist" as far as Egyptians are concerned.
Do you believe in Krishna? No? Then you are an "Atheist" as far as the Hindu are concerned.
Do you believe in Allah? No? Then you are an "Atheist" as far as Muslims are concerned.
Which "God" exactly are you referring to? There have been thousands of "Gods" throughout Man's history. Which God are you saying an Atheist is bound to? The Christian God(s)? The Egyptian Gods? The Hindu Gods? The Native American Gods?
It's just silly when you really think about it.
:winkc:
Understand ???
Good Day ...
If you were the only person on earth .. the very first person .. and nothing was ever said about anything even by you .. you would not be an atheist. There would be "No Mind". You could not be an atheist until in your own mind you say .. there is a god and then said in your mind there is no god.
Any word spoken is mind.
Denial ( as in your quoted definition ) is active engagement of the mind.
My openning post is NOT about religion .. atheism .. or could be about anything instead ... good vs bad .. rich vs poor. I was poking fun if you will of the great importance we attach to our "convictions". One conviction is about as useless as the next. Although we seem to think the more we have the bigger we are the opposite is true.
The pure heart is underneath all that .. deep underneath.
" What is their to "drop" ? "you say ??
The mind itself. "No Mind".
Good Day ...:)
"No Mind" doesn't work for me...that's how millions get trapped within main-stream religions like Christianity.
If I was the first person on Earth, the very first person, and nothing was said etc etc etc, I WOULD be an Atheist, because I WOULD NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.
Atheist is JUST A WORD we use to define the lack of belief in God. Anything else that you are adding to that is just your projections.
One can be an Atheist and have no "convictions".
Take me, for example. As soon as I see the tiniest shred of evidence for a "Higher Power" or "God" I will believe. But, as it stands now: The belief in God is pure assumption and not one person I have ever spoken to online, or anywhere else, has ever given me a reason to believe.
So, I don't believe.
I'm not saying that there absolutely is no God.
I'm just saying that I don't believe there is, because I've yet to see proof.
In order to have "No Mind", there would be no God, no Buddhism, no truth, no Atheism, No emotions, No primal drives, etc.
The idea of "No Mind" doesn't appeal to me at all - our minds are what got us to where we are today.
The "Pure Heart", it turns out, is actually just another part of the mind.
How so ?? You did not invent God yet ?? How could you be an atheist ??? By your own definition it is IMPOSSIBLE !! Even when you are the first person in the world you must cling to your thoughts. Understand ?
The experience of " No Mind " is what you would have if you were the first person before thought. "Atheism" and "No Mind" come later in the form of thoughts.
I was trained in science and see the debates rage every day about creationism .. evolution .. ect . ect. . They are thoughts just thoughts .. like flashing colors of light. A new thought may replace evolution some day or Quantum Mechanics .. and creationism may fall into the abyss. They are just thoughts .. they come and go .. it is to be expected.
So ... whats left ?? Whats real ? No mind.
Good Day ...
Yeah .. sure .. you are the first person on earth before thought and you are still clinging to your thought of "Atheism" and there is no God anywhere to be found since you never invented him ...
See ? You are in the same boat as those that believe in the little old man in the sky !!! THE SAME BOAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good day ...