Atheism: a label that is too small for me

[cylon]

Confusing, jumbled thoughts to follow, I am seeking accepting, good natured insight.

Having experienced many things regarding IM, I am led to believe there is something happening here. On one hand, I have no problem with the idea that we are all connected, we are the Universe. If the universe is all there is, clearly you and I are the same. Now subjective reality, and IM, can explain better this sense of "oneness", and I am enjoying it. It seems to tie in closely to the tao, in my mind, which is a philosophy I have been more and more interested in during the last few years.

I write this post because this is sort of a turning point for me: having been raised a Christian, gods and demons and spirits and all that stuff, had a big impact on me. I was afraid of this world my family had introduced me to, where I was the helpless puppet of a benevolent father who loved me (as long as I followed the arbitrary rules... rules that seemed to reflect the barbaric mindset of humans living thousands of years ago) and a cool, fun uncle who the family had shunned because he kept rocking the boat (you may know him as SATAN!!!!)

On to a world of atheism, science, a sense of personal responsibility and freedom I wouldn't trade for anything. Gone are the fears and nightmares of religion. What made them disappear? Carl Sagan. Dan Barker. Elaine Pagels. Michael Shermer. Penn & Teller. Desmond Morris. Skeptic magazine. Atheist websites. PBS nature documentaries courtesy netflix.

And things that weren't so atheist: Alan Watts. The Tao. Hardcore Zen. Joseph Campbell. Creative visualization. The Force (yes, the force).

I am building a new bookshelf. And it has things on it that don't seem to fit. Do I put the Demon Haunted World next to my collection of Alan Watts? How does Joseph Campbell fit in with "Atheism: The Case Against God"? How do my many translations of the Tao fit in with my books by Richard Dawkins (which I admit are way above my head)? Then there's "Losing faith in faith", the color scheme sort of clashes with "the Secret".

I'm at a turning point here. I believe consciousness is more than we understand. And I so value my skeptic mindset. It set me free. How the hell do I combine all these influences into a cohesive philosophy? Because they all speak to me. And it seems they can't all fit. Or can they?

IM would say I'm focusing on confusion, and reaping that. I think I am fascinated by knowledge, understanding, it "turns me on" and once I think I "know", new visions open up, and I don't know a thing.

I read Steve's "Meaning of Life" intro. It is my story. Even down to the stealing and Depeche Mode fanaticism. I know this is not a uniqe experience to me. I abandoned my spiritual beliefs, that gave me SOME comfort, for atheism, which gave me more comfort. Now I seem to be abandoning that, and I'm not sure where it's taking me.

But I know many of you have gone through this. Insights into this rant are greatly appreciated.

[John Wesley]

I see where you are coming from. It is difficult to decide on anything spiritually. I personally don't believe in the dogma of any religion but neither am I a certified atheist. I feel there is unity in the universe and that saying out right that there is no God is an oversimplification.

Being someone who continually questions their own spiritual beliefs is a hard life. We are never certain of anything. We can never rest our minds on one set of beliefs, we are constantly changing, learning, and revising.

I think you just to need to accept that there is no one final truth to discover. I think you are confused because different elements of many things appeal to you while others turn you off. You think that nothing on your book shelf goes together, but another way to think of it is that everything goes together, that every piece is one part of a vast body that makes up your personal spirituality.

I hope this is of some help. It is always difficult to express spiritual notions. Words are never sufficient. You should have confidence that you are doing the right thing by exploring new beliefs and always questioning them.

[maverickstruth]

I think in many ways, agnostic can be a label that fits. What most people don't realize is that an agnostic can tend toward theism or an atheism... because all that "agnostic" means is that you don't know. The people we think of as "seekers" can often also be called agnostic. So long as you are on a path of learning, and understand that you don't know it all, I think you can fit in the broad category of agnostic -- and it can be liberating to realize it. All the philosophies don't have to fit cohesively, they just have to fit your experience.

To borrow from Steve's software analogy, you just load whatever software helps with the situation you're in. If the Tao seems to help you gain understanding in one area, then go with the Tao. If it's IM, go with IM. For that matter, even Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. can be software that help you gain understanding.

Then again, much of that is really only relevant if you're looking for a label. Personally, I try to avoid labelling myself like the plague.

And on an unrelated note, loved seeing Elaine Pagels on your list. She's written some great stuff -- and if you like what she's had to say, may I also recommend Bart Ehrman. His "Misquoting Jesus" is a good one.

[John Wesley]

I've always been inclined to stay away from agnosticism. Agnosticism implies doubt. I know that I feel something powerful in the unity of nature, but I also know that it doesn't fit inline with the dogma of any formal religion. This doesn't mean that I'm in doubt about the existence of God or the truth of religion, but that I have my own individual beliefs. Just my 2 cents.

[dor]

Originally Posted by John Wesley

I've always been inclined to stay away from agnosticism. Agnosticism implies doubt. I know that I feel something powerful in the unity of nature, but I also know that it doesn't fit inline with the dogma of any formal religion. This doesn't mean that I'm in doubt about the existence of God or the truth of religion, but that I have my own individual beliefs. Just my 2 cents.

better than atheism which makes an absolute, irrational judgment IMHOP - Agnosticism can just imply you haven't figured it out yet.

Also, i wouldn't throw out organized religion - there are centuries - eons of collective memory and 'wisdom of the ages' in relgiious orders - most of which have evolved organically - and within those structures you have the freedom to explore as opposed to the 'make your own religion' approach.

Its like trying to 'make your own science' in my opinion.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

better than atheism which makes an absolute, irrational judgment IMHOP - Agnosticism can just imply you haven't figured it out yet.

Dor, I disagree that as an atheist, I make an absolute, irrational judgement. While I cannot be 100% certain that a personal, supernatural interventionist god does not exist, I have discerned that the probability is so low as to be insignificant. The same is true of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you wouldn't say I'm absolutist and irrational for not believing he exists, would you? That is why I, also, don't like the term agnostic -- it's too wishy-washy to describe my thinking in the matter.

Cylon, there doesn't have to be conflict in believing there is no personal supernatural interventionist god while at the same time exploring the interesting subjects you have on your bookshelf. They broaden your horizons, grow your brain synapses, and might even change your mind. There's no rule that you have to "combine all these influences into a cohesive philosophy" -- you're free to remain open and flexible till the day you die. Who knows what might be available to you if you stay present and alert?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

The same is true of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and you wouldn't say I'm absolutist and irrational for not believing he exists, would you?

A 'flying spaghetti monster' (sounds like dawkins words, not yours....) is as specific as the 'bearded man in the clouds' - the description of god that curiously, only comes from atheists.... - and a false comparison. as is this limited definition: "personal, supernatural interventionist"

when you say that there is no God - your saying that the forces in this universe - and the order - including evolution - came - from nothing. poof, laws of physics, poof, elements.....

in my opinion, science tells us the hows, but cannot by definition tell us the whys.
you can tell me how water is boils on a tea pot, but not why.

You can't tell me about the beauty of a canvas by telling me about chemical make up of a pigments -and any scientist who would claim they could is fool ....when science tries to start explaining the whys, or you deny you year for the whys your limiting yourself.....

All i am saying is keep open the possibility that the universe is far far far more complex then we are even close to understanding and Richard Dawkins is truly an idiot and a small minded one at that if he even thinks we are close to - and far more wonderful and incredible keep open the possibility.

If you say there is no God, then where and why did all of this come into being?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

A 'flying spaghetti monster' (sounds like dawkins words, not yours....) is as specific as the 'bearded man in the clouds' - the description of god that curiously, only comes from atheists.... - and a false comparison. as is this limited definition: "personal, supernatural interventionist"

The FSM was invented by neither Mr. Dawkins nor myself. Are you suggesting that I am either a plagiarist or a blind-faith-sheep?

I used the limitation, "personal, supernatural interventionist" to differentiate from other definitions of god that I'm not atheistic about: like a universal sense of oneness, or the growth power in nature, etc.

Originally Posted by dor

when you say that there is no God - your saying that the forces in this universe - and the order - including evolution - came - from nothing. poof, laws of physics, poof, elements.....

You're putting quite a few words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by dor

in my opinion, science tells us the hows, but cannot by definition tell us the whys.

That is so. And to say that a personal, supernatural interventionist god is the only possible explanation to explain the whys or the beauties is not satisfying to me. Good thing for me: I don't need an explanation; I am simply willing to accept the natural word, with gratitude to nature itself.

Originally Posted by dor

fool ...kind of like richard dawkins....truly an idiot and a small minded one at that.

Please. We don't need such personal attacks here, do we?

Originally Posted by dor

If you say there is no God, then where and why did all of this come into being?

where?= I don't understand the question.
why?= I don't know. If a compelling explanation presents itself to me, with real evidence, I would love to explore it. Meanwhile I'm happy to be here.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

I used the limitation, "personal, supernatural interventionist" to differentiate from other definitions of god that I'm not atheistic about: like a universal sense of oneness, or the growth power in nature, etc.

okay then you're not an atheist, your an atheist about a personal, supernatural intervetionalist god?

Originally Posted by Angela

You're putting quite a few words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.

sorry didn't mean you personally , think 'when one says"

Originally Posted by Angela

Please. We don't need such personal attacks here, do we?

Well, I think Richard Dawkins is a fool...and i have found most of his disciples to be just as fanatical as they claim religous fanatics are only their fanaticism is hatred of religion....... he has little or no understanding of humanity or human nature that's for sure.
. He's certainly done nothing to warrant being treated with any respect or courtesy since he has none for other people -- and his arrogance crosses over to idiocy. But I have read enough history to see those who claim to embrace absolute reason and rationality usually end up killing a whole lot of people from 1789 onward....

Originally Posted by Angela

where?= I don't understand the question.
why?= I don't know. If a compelling explanation presents itself to me, with real evidence, I would love to explore it. Meanwhile I'm happy to be here.

okay but it's a pretty big question to leave lying around eh? I look at religion or spirituality, if you prefer, as this - take some time to dwell on it - you don t have to be a pro - you don't have to be a professional tennis player to own a racket and have a match once in awhile. i look at prayer or reading theology as that - dwelling upon a question.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

okay then you're not an atheist, your an atheist about a personal, supernatural intervetionalist god?

That is the definition of "atheist" as I use it.

Originally Posted by dor

sorry didn't mean you personally , think 'when one says"

I understand. Atheists in general don't necessarily make the claims you stated.

Originally Posted by dor

Richard Dawkins is a fool... he has little or no understanding of humanity or human nature that's for sure... He's certainly done nothing to warrant being treated with any respect or courtesy since he has none for other people -- and his arrogance crosses over to idiocy.

I beg your pardon. I understand your point, and it strikes me as vengeance-based, just like the bible. Still, in these forums, etiquette calls for no personal attacks, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

Originally Posted by dor

okay but it's a pretty big question to leave lying around eh? I look at religion or spirituality, if you prefer, as this - take some time to dwell on it - you don t have to be a pro - you don't have to be a professional tennis player to own a racket and have a match once in awhile. i look at prayer or reading theology as that - dwelling upon a question.

okay, I'll dwell on it.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

I beg your pardon. I understand your point, and it strikes me as vengeance-based, just like the bible. Still, in these forums, etiquette calls for no personal attacks, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.
.

well that can bee seen as insulting a judgment to a body of work embraced by millions as sacred text... please explain to me how the Gospels are vengeance-based...i am genuinely curious. Yes, I realize there's lots of wars and all that neat stuff in the old testement......
Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
So if this, according to the Gospels, the words Jesus, how can the bible possibly be vengence based? Misued by people? Yep. Hyporcites claim they follow this? yes. No one is perfect? (and there we might find the root of a lot of atheism, not to little faith but 'too much" )...


i do not mean to personally insult anyone on this forum. Richard Dawkins is a public figure, I have stated why I think he is a fool. I don't meant the term as a insult but as an assement of his ideas, his intellect and his overall character. You can think me a fool for thinking so, I really don't care.
There are plenty of agnostics, scientists who don't believe in God, etc whom I respect...Dawkins as you may gather, is not one of them. He is fanatcism masking itself as science

[Yev]

Originally Posted by dor

If you say there is no God, then where and why did all of this come into being?

It is very hard to imagine how something as complex and wonderful as the universe came about all by itself. If god created the universe he must be even more complex and more wonderful than the universe he created. This makes it even harder to imagine how something as fantastically complex and wonderously wonderful as god came about all by itself. Thus I take the easy way out because it is more likely that the lesser complex universe came about by itself than the more complex god came about by itself.

If you believe god created the universe, who created god and who created his creator? Fortunately, when you read the various mythologies from around the world it is clear that all the known gods were created by man. If the real god has chosen to remain anonymous for thousands of years, who am I to try and "out" him?

[dor]

Originally Posted by Yev

Fortunately, when you read the various mythologies from around the world it is clear that all the known gods were created by man.

Is it? Or are they all representations of the same thing - some clearer then others, some focusing on different aspects? Pieces of a giant puzzle?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by dor

please explain to me how the Gospels are vengeance-based...i am genuinely curious.

An eye for an eye. The smiting of entire populations in punishment of disobedience. Laws declared by biblical god mandating the death penalty for such infractions as backtalk, adultery, and idolatry. The Big Vengeance Cheese: accept me as your personal savior, or suffer in stinky agony for all eternity.

As for the personal insults. You have declared that Richard Dawkins is a fool and an idiot because of his opinions and statements. Extropolated, that sounds to me like you're saying that any of us here who share his opinions and make similar statements are fools and idiots. For instance, what if I was to say, "Jesus was an idiot! What an evil guy he was!" It's possible that believers might be rather incensed by those remarks, right? even though Jesus was a public figure, and (arguably) not here with us now.

Believers: I do not maintain that Jesus was an idiot or evil guy. He was cool. Please do not take my remarks out of context.

[dor]

Originally Posted by Angela

An eye for an eye. The smiting of entire populations in punishment of disobedience. Laws declared by biblical god mandating the death penalty for such infractions as backtalk, adultery, and idolatry. The Big Vengeance Cheese: accept me as your personal savior, or suffer in stinky agony for all eternity.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Originally Posted by Angela

As for the personal insults. You have declared that Richard Dawkins is a fool and an idiot because of his opinions and statements...extropolated, that sounds to me like you're saying that any of us here who share his opinions and make similar statements are fools and idiots. For instance, what if I was to say,..Jesus was an idiot!

if inadvertently, i think you have freud-ian slipped my point about Dawkins
anyway, you kind of did say that about Jesus...." The Big Vengeance Cheese: accept me as your personal savior, or suffer in stinky agony for all eternity" and chose what looks like a particularly snarky way to state it too.

anyway, we obviously disagree on this......

[Angela]

[quote=dor;33108]And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

What does that mean? How does that relate to my examples of biblical pronouncements of vengeance?

Originally Posted by dor

if inadvertently, i think you have freud-ian slipped my point about Dawkins
anyway, you kind of did say that about Jesus...." The Big Vengeance Cheese: accept me as your personal savior, or suffer in stinky agony for all eternity" and chose what looks like a particularly snarky way to state it too.

I don't understand. What is my freudian slip?
Is that not the cornerstone of traditional christian faith? My understanding is that's it in a nutshell: "Accept me as your personal savior, or suffer in agony for all eternity." Did Jesus not say that? Cuz that's what the proselytizers tell me I have to do, and what the consequences are for failing to comply. I added the 'stinky' because brimstone is supposed to smell really really bad. Sorry if that was snarky. But I think it's an accurate description of "hell". Hell for me would certainly involve stinkiness.

[dor]

[quote=Angela;33112]

Originally Posted by dor

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

What does that mean? How does that relate to my examples of biblical pronouncements of vengeance?


I don't understand. What is my freudian slip?
Is that not the cornerstone of traditional christian faith? My understanding is that's it in a nutshell: "Accept me as your personal savior, or suffer in agony for all eternity." Did Jesus not say that? Cuz that's what the proselytizers tell me I have to do, and what the consequences are for failing to comply. I added the 'stinky' because brimstone is supposed to smell really really bad. Sorry if that was snarky. But I think it's an accurate description of "hell". Hell for me would certainly involve stinkiness.

Freudian slip using Christ as an example of bashing Dawkins a, and I had said that I find Dawkins and his disciples as fanatic as the fanaticism they so loudly condemn.
vengence: the central saying of Christ is that you must love God, and love thy neighbor as thyself and ON THIS hang ALL the laws - in other words it overrides vengeance - and "eye for an eye" .
Usually people who read cherry picked quotes from the bible (which is really just a mini-library as opposed to a book. ).....don't grasp this central belief of the Christian faith. not saying that everyone follows it perfectly and its open to everything to interpretation...but ...it pretty obvious, at least to me that if this saying by Christ overrides any vengence, than the bible is not vengence based....(I certainly don't see anything in the gospels, which is central to christiantiy, as vengeance based.

again, I think atheistist problem is not too little faith, but too much.

[Angela]

I'm sorry, Dor, I still don't understand what you mean.

-- How did I make a Freudian slip, which is an error in speech caused by the unconscious mind?

-- how exactly did I insult Jesus by repeating the mandate: "Accept me as your personal savior or suffer an eternity of agony"? I ask you again, is that not a central tenet of traditional christianity?

-- the bible outlines all those laws, and then declares them null and void due to the newer "love thy neighbor" rule? Why include them at all, then? To show us our near miss?

-- You think my problem is that I have too much faith? Faith in what? Why is it a problem?

Thanks for addressing my questions. Cylon, this might not be the direction you thought your question would lead, sorry. But it does address your request for insights!