Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The very limited point of this thread is simply that the real conflict is at the level of atheism vs. theism and that this is the level at which a discussion or debate is most productively conducted - but seldom is. As I just suggested in my thread "Ten Alternative Truths," vast bodies of arguments, evidence and experience - including philosophy - can and should contribute to an atheistic or theistic orientation toward reality.
The species of theism in which a theist lands, such as Christianity, typically involves different considerations and different sorts of convictions. Those atheists of whom I am speaking - and they do predominate here, it seems to me - are, as Mystic suggests, seemingly incapable of conducting a discussion or debate at the level of atheism vs. theism. So they largely confine themselves to (mindless) gibes at and attacks on a cartoonish caricature of Christianity.
This is my only point here: The real the conflict is at the level of atheism vs. theism and this is the level at which discussion and debate is most likely to be productive.
What I mean by "making peace" with Christianity is fully explained in my thread "Making Peace With Christianity." I'm not going to repeat it all here but would certainly encourage you to take a peek. If the Christianity subforum is a Christian refuge, it appears to be one infested with crocodiles.
You're making some assumptions here.
1. Not everybody wants to sit at the computer and write a long opinion piece day after day after day, or, in fact, like you have been doing, multiple long opinion pieces day after day. Some of us simply know -- at this point in time -- whether we believe or not. And we know what parts of some belief system we believe or not.
2. The "at this point in time" point is important. Many of us don't feel the need to reiterate, for your personal edification, the route we have taken to get to where we are at this point in our lives. For example, myself: Eight years of medthodism as a child and teenager. The general belief in christianity was there then, but there was a great deal of disbelief even in those early years about many of the stories of the bible. I didn't believe Adam & Eve even then. I didn't believe Noah's great flood. I didn't believe in many of the 'tales of the bible'. But I did believe in god, and I did believe in the basic story of Jesus. Then about 50 years of trying to be a good catholic, but with an ever creeping disbelief. And then my travels took me to Theravada Buddhism, and for over 30 years of being some level of catholic, I began to try to meld together catholic beliefs and Buddhist beliefs. There was some overlap (as outlined in "Living Buddha, Living Christ" and other writings by Thich Nhat Hanh, but to a large degree the two belief systems were incompatible. And so from 1985 on I became decreasingly catholic and increasingly Buddhist. And then 2 things happened that turned me into a firm atheistic Theravada Buddhist. First, at the one time in life when I really needed god...nothing. And it's something I don't discuss with anyone. Second, and equally important, was when I started to become active on this forum. It wasn't the atheists here that cemented my transition into atheism. It was the christians and their abusive posts that showed me very clearly that it's a religion I detest. And you follow in that tradition. It hasn't been atheistic posters here who sealed the deal, and it hasn't been famous atheists like Dawkins. It's been christians -- like you -- who have been a total turn-off. In terms of being a spokesperson for christianity, God should give you an F.
3. I have a Bachelor's and Master's Degree in geology, and focused on invertebrate paleontology. In other words...evolution. Another nail in the coffin for christianity.
4. Having said all that, I just want to make clear that I don't reject all of christianity. If you dig through the bible, and if you set aside all the woo woo, there are some good principles there. Half the ten commandments are pretty decent words to live by, whether one believes in god or not. Of course, those select commandments are not exactly original to christianity. The half that are -- or should be -- universal are found in the five basic Buddhist Precepts, although in Buddhism I would say they are more all-encompassing.
5. But number 4, above, brings up another issue. The idea that you have to accept it all OR ELSE (OR ELSE HELL, for example). Bull toddy. And I don't care if one is talking about christianity or Buddhism. If you buy it all, as my grandfather would have said, "lock, stock, and barrel", then you're not a thinking christian, or a thinking Buddhist, or a thinking anything else. I remember well a rather long conversation I had with a Theravada Buddhist monk in Krung Thep. I don't remember the specific Buddhist concept which I brought up, although it may very well have been something about karma and rebirth, and I asked, so can I still call myself a Buddhist. The monk gave me very good advice (paraphrased after all these years): 'Don't throw the concept away. Just set it aside. You may come back to it as you move further on down your path'. Some call it cherry picking and disdain it (even though they do it themselves); I would describe it as thinking about the dishes of thought on an intellectual smorgasbord. What do 'you' see as valid or invalid?
6. I don't want to make peace with christianity. Because you christians try to push your faith on people who have other belief systems. We are in an era in this country right now (not that it's the first time) when the christian right is being very aggressive. So no, I'm not going to make peace with christianity and I'm not going to sit down and shut up. Stay in your own lane. And if y'all did, this whole line of thought and posts wouldn't have to exist. THAT would be peace.
7. Don't blame us atheists for the turmoil in the christianity sub-forum. That's on 'you'.
...The very limited point of this thread is simply that the real conflict is at the level of atheism vs. theism and that this is the level at which a discussion or debate is most productively conducted - but seldom is...
This is my only point here: The real the conflict is at the level of atheism vs. theism and this is the level at which discussion and debate is most likely to be productive.
You keep trying to come back to this, but it's not any different than comparing any two groups of thought.
It's simply two ways of looking at life, with neither one being more important or "right" than the other. What is important and "right" exists in a person's mind (and 'heart' and soul); not as defined by someone else. This whole atheism vs. theism nonsense is a product of troublemaking churches. They don't give a damn of the division and garbage they promote.
You're trying to promte rules that come from you (and churches) instead of looking for realities among humans as a whole and the universe. You have to break free of that if you want to understand others, and the commonalities of us all. Look for similarities rather than differences, and you will go much further.
If you're a Christian, you should be seeking the unity that Jesus spent much time living and expanding upon. It's no surprise that people from all walks of life were drawn to him. The opposite of him are pushy, busy-body "Christians", who are just frauds and only interested in complicating others' lives.
The conflict is not in others; it's in you, for not opening yourself fully up for understanding, and for promoting rules that others can't recognize. Take responsibility, and focus on what you need to change, and you will understand more and have less need to keep repeating yourself.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 10-27-2023 at 10:57 AM..
The very capability (consciousness) we use to address these questions IS the evidence of God. But since it is entirely identified with us and our sensory impressions as individuals, it is virtually impossible to see how that is. That is why the advice to withdraw from our sensory system and "be silent and know that I am" is the heart of the meditative and contemplative practice of understanding the divine, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
Nice, Mystic. That is what the Upanishads that you so very much hold in disdain, have been saying for 1000s of years, in many, many ways. Welcome to the light my friend
I have no disdain for the Upanishads, just for the irrational definitions of an unchanging, timeless, (essentially static and therefore dead) nature of divinity that I KNOW is alive.
The species of theism in which a theist lands, such as Christianity, typically involves different considerations and different sorts of convictions. Those atheists of whom I am speaking - and they do predominate here, it seems to me - are, as Mystic suggests, seemingly incapable of conducting a discussion or debate at the level of atheism vs. theism. So they largely confine themselves to (mindless) gibes at and attacks on a cartoonish caricature of Christianity.
More dishonest attacks from you. I resolved part of your spiritual journey of over half a lifetime with a short and simple logical argument (yes, you wasted 40 years asking the wrong questions (and you called me an internet goof and a poser ). I have provided logical and mathematical evidence for why we have an ordered existence without the need for a god, I have pointed to the science you are ignorant of, and I have rarely made any arguments against actual Christianity, although I could.
All you have provided are links, insults, and (mindless) gibes at and attacks on a cartoonish caricature of atheists AND reality.
And I must find that atheism vs. theism thread, where the theist argued 3 points, but when we looked closely, 1 of the points when taken to it's conclusion was god was impossible, and another was god was most improbable. Only the third was neutral.
Okay thank you.
So excuse me if I'm being really dim here but I really do just want to try to clarify this in my own head.
Are you saying there are avenues to discuss atheism v theism that could be achieved by stripping away the religion side of things completely?
I suppose that's possible but right now I'm struggling to think how.unless we move towards philosophy. However I'm open and willing to learn and partake. Seems more along the lines of the pantheism thread but perhaps I'm not seeing other possibilities.
Or perhaps you are saying that religion can still be included in the discussions but we should not criticize religion? Again, if that's what you are saying, I'm equally willing to have a shot at it.
Your statement
'arguments, evidence and experience - including philosophy - can and should contribute to an atheistic or theistic orientation toward reality' does still seem like a philosophical stance to me.
So I feel like I'm still not completely understanding your focus, so maybe start a thread with some guidelines and we will see.
I haven't read your ten truths thread yet and I don't have time now but I'll get to it later. Maybe that will shed light on things for me.
I'll try to get to the one in the Christianity forum as well at some point.
I do think my "Ten Alternative Truths" thread would clear things up for you.
Virtually every area of human experience and knowledge can contribute to a quest for ultimate ontological truth and eventually to a conviction about atheism or theism. By no means is the quest limited to philosophical arguments, nor should tne discussion be.
Yes, at the level of atheism vs. theism I do believe that discussion of the "religious side of things" - meaning specific religions and religious beliefs - is a counterproductive distraction.
As Mystic has suggested, few participants show the capacity or willingness to engage at the level I'm talking about. Mindless potshots at a caricature of Christianity are much easier and more fun. I understand that. I'm really not pushing for interesting, substantive, intellectually challenging discussions on these forums. That would be a fantasy on my part.
Take the ontological argument(s) for the existence of a deity. It has occupied some of the greatest philosophical and theological minds for centuries and continues to do so. An atheist vs. theist discussion would be substantive and potentially worthwhile. Yet an atheist here who postures himself as an intellectual in recent weeks said he had quickly determined that the ontological argument, which he incorrectly attributed to Aquinas, was too silly to bother with. Uh-huh. So, no, I have no illusions.
I just make the points I think are worth making and let others do with them what they will.
You keep trying to come back to this, but it's not any different than comparing any two groups of thought.
It's simply two ways of looking at life, with neither one being more important or "right" than the other. What is important and "right" exists in a person's mind (and 'heart' and soul); not as defined by someone else. This whole atheism vs. theism nonsense is a product of troublemaking churches. They don't give a damn of the division and garbage they promote.
WHAT??? You think the debate between atheism and theism is "the product of troublemaking chiurches"? That debate has occupied the greatest minds of philosophy and theology dating back to ancient times. The nature of ultimate ontological reality is THE central question of philosophy. It has precisely NOTHING to do with "troublemaking churches."
It is indeed "two ways of looking at life." Two VASTLY different ways of looking at life, with vastly different consequences for every aspect of life. Yes, it is up to each individual to reach his or her own convictions; I have said nothing different. I really have no clue what point you even think you're making.
The rest of your lecture is so completely off the wall, so completely unrelated to anything I have said or suggested, that I'm simply going to let it go. You clearly have some deep, un-Tao-like anger issues with "troublemaking churches" and "pushy, busy-body 'Christians,' who are just frauds and only interested in complicating others' lives," but I'm sure how they got triggered by this thread.
That debate has occupied the greatest minds of philosophy and theology dating back to ancient times.
It is indeed "two ways of looking at life." Two VASTLY different ways of looking at life, with vastly different consequences for every aspect of life.
Why debate something that one side won't change or relinquish on, and the other side won't change or relinquish on either? It's like a chihuahua wresting with a towel.
Maybe it's a preference for religion, which favors arguing and debating. Spirituality on the other hand brings down the barriers, so enlightenment might come.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 10-27-2023 at 03:02 PM..
Why debate something that one side won't change or relinquish on, and the other side won't change or relinquish on either? It's like a chihuahua wresting with a towel.
Maybe it's a preference for religion, which favors arguing and debating. Spirituality on the other hand brings down the barriers, so enlightenment might come.
Ah, are you enlightened? I guess I missed that part. Is it enlightenment and "breaking down the barriers" that generates your references to "troublemaking churches" and "pushy, busy-body 'Christians,' who are just frauds and only interested in complicating others' lives" - is that how enlightenment and breaking down the barriers works? Is it enlightenment and breaking down the barriers by which you judge where I am on the spiritual scale and what I "need to do" to reach your level?
Like certain others on here who claim an affinity with Taoism, Buddhism and Eastern traditions - for which I have the highest respect - your posts exhibit little of the peace of mind, compassion and other fruits that those traditions produce in their genuine followers. QUITE the opposite - more like Anger City. Odd, eh?
Anyway, share with us your enlightenment and how you achieved it. Presumably your enlightenment embraces both materialistic atheism and fundamentalist Christianity - right? It pretty much has to - right? Otherwise you'd still be stuck in barrier mode - right? So, please, cut right through all my nonsense that sees a fundamental distinction between atheism and theism and enlighten us all. Keep painting yourself ever deeper into a corner.
There aren't "sides" in the discussion, or at least there shouldn't be. How do you know who will or won't change their convictions? Fundamentalist Christians become atheists and vice-versa. Atheists become theists and vice-versa. If someone holds strong and well-informed convictions, I am unlikely to persuade him out of them and he is unlikely to persuade me out of mine, but we can still have a productive dialogue. Many, many others have no strong convictions at all and have never even considered the arguments and evidence that serious atheists and theists rely upon. They can benefit greatly from what you dismiss as unproductive "debate."
This thread was simply - SIMPLY - my attempt to highlight the reality that the real differences are at the level of atheism vs. theism, not atheism vs. cartoon Christianity (or Buddhism, or Islam, or Hinduism), and that the most productive discussions are likely to occur at this level.
I truly have no idea what in my posts has put this weird burr under your saddle, but if I had to guess it would be that (1) I identify as a Christian; (2) you have had some past experience with Christians or Christianity that causes identifying as a Christian to trigger some hated stereotype in your mind and be an instant irritant to you; (3) you view anything that any Christian says as proselytizing, regardless of the actual content; and (4) you simply cannot restrain your anger and are compelled to lash out even if it's completely inappropriate to the context. Convince me I'm wrong if you can, but that's the only explanation that occurs to me.
If a believer asked, "Why are you hear, Elyn", the simple answer (for me) would be because my two feet brought me here. This does not involve God and can be considered atheistic, with an emphasis on the -ic suffix. It can mean a person always thinks under the umbrella of atheism as an atheist. Or it can mean the person is just reporting what can be observed. Since I have yet to see a god, and want to stick with observations, my actions are considered to always be under the umbrella of atheism.
Is that the inference you speak of?
On the other hand, if the believer responded with, "No, God sent you here, Elyn", then that is more complex. It is more likely this person always thinks under the umbrella of theism.
Sorry, I just saw this. These discussions are very difficult to keep track of. My thread about "Ten Alternative Truths" is probably more relevant, but I'll try here.
When you say "I have yet to see a god, and want to stick with observations," you are describing an epistemology similar to LearnMe's (or so it seems to me). Something like, "Reality is what can be empirically demonstrated or deduced." This seems to me a very limiting epistemology - a self-imposed intellectual straitjacket, as I say in my exchanges with LearnMe - but it's certainly not irrational.
On the other hand, if there is a deistic or theistic level of reality, or any sort of reality outside or beyond the natural order, science is never going to discover it. Such a higher reality is certainly a logical possibility. Some scientific disciplines provide evidence that is difficult to square with a purely materialistic reality and arguably points to a higher reality. Large bodies of experiential evidence point toward a higher reality. Some philosophical arguments point toward a higher reality.
I can choose to ignore everything but what science establishes to some level of certainty. But I believe the nature of ultimate ontological reality is too important - too important to this life - to limit myself in this manner. Hence, as I explain in "Ten Alternative Truths," I will consider anything and everything that seems relevant to me.
The inference to the best explanation that I speak of is to take the entire body of what I deem relevant and decide where it points - to atheism, to theism, or to whatever. Ditto for you - my only point being that to limit what is deemed relevant to the findings of science is going to pretty well guarantee materialistic/atheistic convictions since science operates on the basis of methodological (and often philosophical) materialism that disallows any other answer.
My only real point here, believe it or not, was that the most productive discussions are likely to be at the level of what arguments and evidence have led me to theistic convictions versus what arguments and evidence have led you to atheistic convictions, not (as is so often the case) why only irrational dummies could believe the doctrines of fundie Christianity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
