How many here are atheists?

[dalebert]

Does this look like anyone we know? 

[Raineyrocks]

Hey, we could do the word "the" while we're at it...like Clinton.

We might get further doing the word "the"!

[kola]

Does this look like anyone we know? 

looks like Jim Icon to me.

[Kat Kanning]

No, not Jim.  Those googly eyes remind me of someone though.


Oh, I got it, it's Ivan  

[dalebert]

I can see the value that Russell gets out of it.  He has said that he thinks God will take care of him, it's all in his hands.  So I never see him worry.  I just can't bring myself to believe the supernatural stuff.  There seems to be a lot in what Jesus said and did that's useful, though.

That seems harmless enough, and of course, neither Russell nor Caleb are high-pressure God salesmen. If I speak out against what I believe to be an irrational belief system in cases like this, it's out of concern. If you have beliefs that God is acting in the world on your behalf, then you could be setting yourself up for a crash. You might be euphoric one moment, but when something bad happens, you feel a need to explain it, to blame something, to figure out what it means, what you've done to offend God and be punished. The safest belief systems I've seen are those that think God has specifically chosen not to intervene in the physical world and his only impact is on what happens after you die. Totally conveniently unprovable and extremely unlikely for reasons given earlier of course, but emotionally safer in that they're not constantly having to fit everything that happens in this world into an irrational world view, like shoving a square peg through a round hole.

[kola]

in the "Kola-world" all things have reason..good or bad. there is no coincidences. there are no "accidents". there is no questioning any of it or blaming something or somewhat.

kola

[Free libertarian]

in the "Kola-world" all things have reason..good or bad. there is no coincidences. there are no "accidents". there is no questioning any of it or blaming something or somewhat.

kola

  In the "uncola" world there is 7-UP. 

[ReverendRyan]

in the "Kola-world" all things have reason..good or bad. there is no coincidences. there are no "accidents". there is no questioning any of it or blaming something or somewhat.

kola

So in the "Kola-world" there is no free will, and no point in posting long screeds trying to change people's opinions on insignificant crap.

[kola]

correct speliing is "Un-Kola"  

[Caleb]

A godless universe wouldn't exist at all.

How very convenient for you.

Not really convenient for me at all, its just that if you are going to post a tautology, then its the answer you deserve. A theist is a person who believes that God is essential to the universe. No God, no universe.

So you've brilliantly been able to deduce that a theist is a theist. Keep up the fine work.

[ReverendRyan]

Not really convenient for me at all, its just that if you are going to post a tautology, then its the answer you deserve. A theist is a person who believes that God is essential to the universe. No God, no universe.

Not necessarily. The majority may, but many old religions held that the earth created the god or gods, or that they brought themselves into existence in an already present universe. In that paradigm, a universe would be possible without the existence of gods. Yet it is still theism.

[Caleb]

What repurcussions? When did I threaten you with repurcussions?

The reason I bring that up is because it brings us back to belief in God having some useful value or meaning in our lives. I mentioned earlier either gaining some benefit from belief OR suffering some sort of repercussions for lack of belief. Either could be looked at as a repercussion though, the repercussion being that I miss out on some kind of benefit because I do not believe. You certainly seem to think that the belief has had an impact on your life.

Yes, I do think it has had a positive impact on my life. I would call it guidance. I think God works through people, and where I feel his presence strongest is in helping me decide to make decisions. And anytime that I resist, the decision turns out poorly. And when I go with it, it turns out well, and usually in quite an unexpected way.


I've given up trying to explain him, even to myself. I just go with it.  I think that a person can go with what works for him. Since I became a believer, I've studied as much science, philosophy, and theology as I could possibly get my hands on in some attempt to understand. But it's only been fairly recently that I started to think, "you know, I have limits, not to my thirst for knowledge, of course, but to my abilities. I can't figure this out. I know it works for me. I know I have a sense of guidance, of purpose, of morality. I feel grounded. Happy. Content. What more can I ask of life? To understand everything? If I could do that, then I would be God." My conceptions of God are probably an idol that don't do him justice. That's ok. If he's a force, what does it matter to me, if it works? Like you said, I'm not here to proselytize anyone. I don't believe in hell, or at least, not in any way that makes it an unpleasant place where bad people are punished. I'm really more of a universalist on that matter. If you want to believe in your rotini monster, fine by me.  If you derive a lot of pleasure in nihilism, hey, it may make me vomit, but if its giving meaning to your life, then what's it to me?

All the proselytizing has come from the atheists. Like your buddy Vitruvian:

Would you not openly question the intelligence of an adult who maintained a belief in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny?

This is exactly the type of stuff that I'm talking about, Dale. Two Porcfest's ago, I was attacked by atheists. Literally. I wasn't preaching, mind you. Friday started it cause she thought it would be funny, and I was surrounded by 10 atheists who attacked me at every turn. I couldn't get two words out in my own defense before another one would shout me down like we were in some talking heads show from hell. The arguments they were using were universally lame arguments that any first year theology student could shoot down in 10 seconds. I never got my ten seconds though, because the atheists were in great form that night, out in force partying, and slapping themselves on the back for a job well done, accosting a person and haranguing him, when he hadn't done a thing to provoke them.

The same thing happened last porcfest, although because the people involved were of a higher class, you and Neil and Dan, I was permitted to speak (if you want to call my high and inebriated ramblings speaking). But the same condescending attitude was on display. And believe me, Dale, I know that it isn't you, because you are respectful of others beliefs. And I like Neil a lot. He usually is too. He was polite in his demeanor, but his words weren't. And this is exactly the sort of attitude that I'm talking about, because I think that some of the lot have internalized their own superiority complex so much that they don't even realize that they are being condescending.  Don't get me wrong. A lot of the atheists are great. PatK. Lloyd. Kat. Ian. You. I apologize if I'm leaving anyone out. Oh, of course, how could I forget Lauren and Jim. They don't attack people for believing, and no one attacks them for not believing. But don't for an instant think that is the sort of spirit that characterizes all of you, or even most of you. Quite the contrary.

[dalebert]

You are intelligent. I seen it in many of your posts. You're a deep thinker, and yet on this subject you don't seem to want to think about it. We have a lot of conversations on this board about some really deep subjects and I feel like we all get enlightened a bit by the exchange. We try to get to some common ground and I think we do a pretty good job of it. I'm not angry and I don't meant to seem that way. I'm certainly not attacking. I am trying to engage in a dialogue on a subject which you seem to consider important. I am frustrated, however, because you're being unresponsive and I know you're capable of having a dialogue on a serious subject.

It's probably not very obvious from that side of the conversation, but you kind of did a drive-by with your belief system. You kind of threw an unsubstantiated claim out there and then wanted to disappear when challenged on it.

You can't define the Deity. That's sort of the point. You can say what God is not, but you cannot define Him. Or if you do define him, it is best to keep in mind that your definition is a vague shadow of the reality, an idol really.

You can, however, experience the divine. God isn't an intellectual exercise. He is an interactive experience.

You expressed frustration with atheists for being unreasonable, and when I asked what they did to be unreasonable, you said they won't even try what you asked them to try. So I asked you what do I try, and you said you don't know. That contradicts what you said the post before. You asked someone to try something, yes? And that person wouldn't give it a chance and so presumably was being unreasonable. That's what you said. So I was trying to be different than them.

And now the way you're describing God sounds like agnosticism- that we cannot know God. It is beyond our understanding. It is infinite. You used that word. Yet you claim to have some connection to the infinite that guides you. I don't have it and you seem to have nothing to offer me to help me get that connection. I'm just missing some ultimate wisdom that you apparently have but are unable to impart to me, perhaps because my thinking is too limited or some such. That doesn't sound condescending to you? Do you now understand my frustration with your vague responses?

[Caleb]

Dale, I'm not trying to be condescending to you. You are intelligent, and more you are respectful as well.

But I don't have every answer you seek. It's not important to me to convert anyone. Mainly I defend myself and theism out of irritation of the bigoted attitude that is expressed. I sort of feel like I have to be the protector of the minority here who would get ganged up on and attacked if it wasn't for people willing to call them on their bullshit.

Don't take that as me trying to convert you or anyone else.

I'll try to take your points in quotes so I don't leave any out.

I am trying to engage in a dialogue on a subject which you seem to consider important. I am frustrated, however, because you're being unresponsive and I know you're capable of having a dialogue on a serious subject.

I am weary of it. This has been discussed ad nauseum on the board. My brief outline of my beliefs is this a) I think that modern man, particularly in his sciences, has inherited a set of philosophical premises that are untenable. These go back to Aristotle, through Aquinas, and eventually were set in stone by the scientific enlightenment crowd (Newton, et al) who adopted them on primarily religious grounds (to preclude religious enthusiasm movements.) Newton, for instance, wrote more on religious topics than scientific ones. These premises have been internalized by the scientific community, so that they are rarely stated, but generally the underlying beliefs are Sensism and Materialism.  b) i believe that Newton and friends didn't realize the eventual outcome of what they were doing. they were believers, seeking to enshrine their religious beliefs in their scientific approach, but the natural outcome of sensism and materialism is not Anglicanism, it is atheism. more than that, the natural outcome of sensism, materialism, and atheism is nihilism, as well as the eventual destruction of reason itself, to the point where reason becomes nonsense. c) I believe that philosophically and empirically, sensism and materialism are untenable, but that although scientific philosophers are aware of the problems with sensory materialism, they continue to insist upon it because they prefer it to its main competition, ontological cartesian dualism. I believe that neither cartesian dualism nor sensory materialism are a proper approach, that neither can solve the world knot.  d) i believe that the natural state of the universe is nothingness. In other words, I can find no reason for anything to exist. I believe that there should be nothing. No time. No space. No matter. No energy. Nothing. But that the fact that something exists puts the proof to the thought that there is something beyond my capacity to grasp. This because I do not believe in genuine paradox, but believe that any seeming contradictions are only apparently so and are due to a lack of knowledge. e) I believe that since I can grasp the concepts of time, space, matter, and energy, and since each of these can be shown to be temporal, there is something outside of this material realm that is eternal (for lack of a better word,) infinite, and (this from my experience) purposive. f) i do not believe that i have sufficient knowledge to speak of this (for lack of a better word) entity definitively, only to suggest possibilities and to use my reason to eliminate what absurdities I can. For instance, while I believe that God is transcendent, I do not believe he is omnipotent. But I believe that when I start to use definitions, it is important to realize that they are only helpful insofar as I realize that these are my definitions, they do not speak anything about God's reality, only my attempt to understand him intellectually. g) I believe strongly that God can be experienced, that this experience will not be "overpowering" in the sense that God will not impose himself on you, but that it will be distinct, in that you will be aware of a will and a purpose that is not your own; I believe that other experiences of God are also possible, and do not propose to have a monopoly on understanding the varieties of religious experience. I believe that I can only speak definitively of my own experiences. I believe that these experiences can be sharpened and increased by achieving the right frame of mind, and that the more in tune with himself that a person is, the more he is able to grasp and interact with with another. 

You expressed frustration with atheists for being unreasonable, and when I asked what they did to be unreasonable, you said they won't even try what you asked them to try. So I asked you what do I try, and you said you don't know. That contradicts what you said the post before. You asked someone to try something, yes? And that person wouldn't give it a chance and so presumably was being unreasonable. That's what you said. So I was trying to be different than them.

Well, what I'm asking them to try isn't a specific "thing". It's merely to open their mind to the possibility. I don't know a foolproof method for experiencing the divine. In my own life, I don't experience a permanent life-link that I can just call on whenever. It comes and goes. I can't just turn it on. I'm just a guy trying to figure it out and make it work more often. Others have devoted their whole lives to experiencing the divine, and there are methods that work for a lot of people. Mike Fisher swears by fasting and forgiving. Ok, if that works for him. I try meditating, with various levels of success, but usually, the experience is not initiated by me. If I had a "turn it on like a light bulb" method, I would tell you.

And now the way you're describing God sounds like agnosticism- that we cannot know God. It is beyond our understanding. It is infinite. You used that word. Yet you claim to have some connection to the infinite that guides you. I don't have it and you seem to have nothing to offer me to help me get that connection.

Interesting, because I have often described myself as philosophically agnostic. I don't believe that it is possible to deduce God as a philosophical proof. You can deduce him as a possibility, but not as a certainty. Nor is it, incidentally, possible to deny his existence, at least if you are concerned with having any philosophical leg to stand on. The only proper philosophical position is agnosticism with respect to God. Our knowledge about him can only come about, not through working up a mathematical proof, but only through experience.

Like I said, I can't give you a snap your fingers method for you to try. I have told you what I know, that with me, I only got it when I got to the point where I despised "Reason" for its absurdity. For awhile, I took solace in the fact that reason had died, because it gave me a glimmer of hope. But afterwards, I began to realize that the fault was not Reason, but the fact that I had taken it out of its perspective. Godel showed that even mathematics cannot provide its own proof. We ask of ourselves too much, we ask that we be gods. Reason is a valuable tool that helps us to sort through our possibilities and make sense of our experiences. When asked to turn us into gods, to absorb the infinite, it dissolves into itself and becomes a mockery of itself.

I'm just missing some ultimate wisdom that you apparently have but are unable to impart to me, perhaps because my thinking is too limited or some such. That doesn't sound condescending to you?

In my defense, you asked. Or at least, you read my responses to others' questions, I don't remember which. It's not like I pm'd you and said, "Hey Dale, guess what, you've got a closed mind." I don't think you do, to be honest. But our experiences are what they are, and if someone wants to know what he needs to do, I can only tell him what my experience was. Perhaps you have an experience of the divine that is different from mine, and you don't realize it. I don't know. Perhaps for you he is a muse. 

[Vitruvian]

I am sorry you feel bullied by "us" atheists, Caleb.  I had nothing to do with your experiences at PorcFest: in fact, I wasn't even there at the time.  To my ears, that "haranguing," as you called it, does not resemble a clear-minded exchange of ideas.  Please don't lump me in with them, like this:

All the proselytizing has come from the atheists. Like your buddy Vitruvian

Looking back to the beginning of this thread, Caleb, I see that you were the one thirsting for a fight.  Given the title, I don't know why you even bothered responding.