GoddessWhispers Posted January 8, 2007 #1 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Article Source I'd like to open with a quote from Bertrand Russell. This was published in 1950 and is from an essay called "The Science to Save us from Science." "All who are not lunatics are agreed about certain things. That it is better to be alive than dead, better to be adequately fed than starved, better to be free than a slave. Many people desire those things only for themselves and their friends; they are quite content that their enemies should suffer. These people can be refuted by science: mankind has become so much one family that we cannot insure our own prosperity except by insuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy." For those of you who don't know about Bertrand Russell he was born in 1872 and died in 1970. He was a British philosopher, mathematician, and Nobel laureate in literature. His emphasis on logical analysis influenced the course of 20th-century philosophy. He was also a pacifist and even while in his 90s he was getting himself arrested for marching in anti-nuclear bomb protests. He was also a flat out atheist. Russell was not a feminist in the modern sense of the word and quite possibly a lecher. He is warmly--perhaps hotly--regarded by conservative Christians for these last two facts and his tendency to be sharply critical of religion in general and Christianity in particular. I think they particularly hated him--and still hate him--because he was so very witty at their expense. "There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character," he wrote in 1957. "and that is that he believed in Hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to his preaching--an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers." Kuan Yin my favorite goddess. She started out in India as the highly androgynous male Ava-lo-ki-tes-vara, the Buddhist bodhisattva of compassion. About 500 A.D. she was carried to China where she remained male for another three hundred years or so. Nobody really knows how or why she became transformed into a female. The indigenous Taoists had a divine female figure and perhaps Ava-lo-ki-tes-vara became associated with her, but in any case about 800 A.D. she became Guan Shih Yin or Kuan Yin. Why do I like her so much? Well, she's very appealing. She's small, she doesn't claim to have created or to rule the universe nor even to catch every sparrow that falls. She does not have a long, blood-soaked history and she exemplifies the human quality that I most admire. I don't have a quote from Kuan Yin--Bertrand Russell actually existed--therefore I would like to call your attention to her picture on the front of your orders of service. This is my favorite representation of her. She is holding two bottles pouring out her mercy and compassion onto the world. The child beside her is not a divine child, but represents all of us. One of the reasons I like this particular picture is that the jug on her shoulder is positioned in such a way that she, herself, cannot help but be drenched. You will notice that, unlike the Sacred Heart version of the Virgin Mary, the compassion doesn't come from her but through her and out to the rest of us. Where that compassion comes from is very important and part of what I want to talk about. I find the discussion about whether or not any of the gods exist to be very dull. I don't think they do. However, human history nearly bristles with gods and therefore it is interesting to wonder why we have those gods and what function they perform for us. Russell thought that gods exist because humans are afraid of death and feel the need of divine protection. I'll talk about that idea more in a moment, but right now I'd like to say I think that's a very small part of the function of gods. After all, most of the Mediterranean gods were contemporary with the Jewish and later Christian god and most of them were not any comfort to humankind. Other than being quite entertaining, what purpose did they serve? It's my contention that all gods exemplify the qualities that we most admire in ourselves. Zeus was a virile male and a powerful ruler. Aphrodite, Venus and Persephone were beauty and fertility. Isis was a good mother and wife. Sophia was knowledge and learning. Yahweh was a wonderful battle commander. Later he became a great Emperor. These days, for some people he's a policeman firmly in control, for others he's a kindly father, loving and protective. Kuan Yin, therefore, is not the source of all compassion. The source of all that compassion is ourselves. Rabbi Kushner, author of When Bad Things Happen to Good People believes that if the gods--specifically his god--doesn't exist then there would be less compassion in the world. Less power, less love, less beauty, less fertility. Obviously I disagree. Whether the gods exist or not all those things are in the universe in the same measure as they have always been. Fathers still love their children whether the Christian God of Love exists or not. The beauty of the world is not diminished if Aphrodite never existed. There is no less compassion in the world because Kuan Yin is only a symbol of our own compassion. Bertrand Russell once said "Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown, and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing--fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death." As I said before, I think that's only a small part of the reason for religions and belief in gods. When the Roots and Branches Adult Education class was reading and discussing the Old Testament we were surprised at how little was said about the afterlife. It seemed like the ancient Jews thought about the afterlife very little. Finally, about a year ago I happened to be present when a local Rabbi was asked about the Jewish version of the afterlife. "We are told how to live a good life," he answered. "What happens after we die is G-d's business and none of our concern." I can tell you I was absolutely delighted by the answer. The business of human beings is to be alive. Death is not our affair. Our job is to learn, grow, dance, sing, have sex, play with, enjoy and teach our children and grandchildren, and to love one another--especially love one another. Love is the finest thing we do. When we are loving we are doing the best thing human beings can do. It is greater than all our other human accomplishments. Our love is more beautiful than the Mona Lisa, stronger than steal cables, older than the pyramids and more impressive than gods, governments, monuments or the entire contents of the Encyclopedia Britanica. Love is the finest thing we do and for me Kuan Yin symbolizes that love. Not her love, not her compassion, but our own. Whenever I talk about spirituality, people who know that I think all that stuff about gods, and who know how much I admire Bertrand Russell always smile at me, sometimes they even laugh at me. How can you be spiritual if you are an atheist? If there's no god to worship, what is there to do? Spirituality has always seemed to consist of getting out of the world and spending all your time in prayer and contemplation of the divine. If there's no divine to contemplate, what's the point? I'd like to make it clear that I do not equate religion with spirituality. I think religion has often been a great evil in the world. If you look up the meaning of the phrase "auto-da-fe" you will see that it means literally "act of faith." This faith act, however, is tying a living person to a stake, piling wood around their feet and burning them to death. Before anybody protests the good things religion has done--The Salvation Army, Feed the Children, The Friends and the Unitarian Universalist Service Committees, etc.--I contend that faith in the unseen does not make us different people from who we already are. Good people do good things, bad people to bad things and both have, in the past, invoked religion and belief in God as the motivation for their behavior. I think that spirituality is extremely important. A healthy spiritual life is important to our development as human beings. Healthy spirituality is as important as good self esteem or good relationships, but I separate spirituality from religion. I don't think it has much to do with divine revelation or worship of the unseen. That brings us to the sticky subject of a definition for spirituality. If spirituality doesn't have much to do with gods or divine inspiration, what the heck is it? I've read a lot on this subject and talked to a lot of people about it. The answer is clear--we're going to have to live with ambiguity. There's no single definition. Everyone must find the answer for themselves. Naturally I've come up with a definition for myself and I'll offer it to you, not as the final answer--because I don't believe there is one--but to give you something to think about, or maybe a starting point for your own definition. So what is spirituality? What are we doing when we are "being" spiritual? For me spirituality is not a state, but an activity. In my humble opinion spirituality is practice. I can't stress that enough. Traditional Asian sitting meditation is a practice--and a difficult one--even though it looks like doing nothing. Spirituality is not striking a virtuous pose. It's not waiting for a swell of emotion. Usually the spiritual practice is something which is repetitive and which serves to disengage the wandering ever-busy mental processes and allow them to come to rest. When the restless mind quiets we can form an intimacy with ourselves. When that happens we also forge a connection between ourselves and the web of existence. We make a carefully considered, nourishing and replenishing connection with life itself. Spirituality is forming an intimate and loving connection with ourselves and with everything in life. What constitutes spiritual practice? What do you do? Some practices are obvious. Meditation is one, an important one. Another traditional practice is contemplation and prayer--whether you pray to someone or not, whether you contemplate the divine or the universe in all its splendor. I dance. I play the drum. I chant and I participate in rituals. But also, I know several people who garden, who paint--both pictures and houses, who work wood or metal, who sew, who jog, who bake bread. Phil Jackson in the book Sacred Hoops finds basketball to be a spiritual practice. There are many ways to celebrate these important spiritual connections and allow ourselves to be nourished by them. If the gods exist, they are probably having a good laugh at our expense. If they do not, they are ourselves, as beautiful and graceful as Aphrodite, as dark and wicked as Ahriman, as playful and capricious as Coyote, as powerful and intelligent as Quetzalcoatl, as strong and virile as Zeus, as gentle and loving as Kuan Yin. The gods show us who we are and what we can be. Ultimately Kuan Yin and Bertrand Russell are telling us the same thing: Be compassionate toward one another. Love one another. Endure the happiness of your neighbors, because their happiness is inextricably bound to your own. And for the sake of your own happiness, forge an intimate connection with yourself and between yourself and everything that is in life, celebrate those connections and be nourished by them. http://members.cox.net/sbcogan/russell.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessWhispers Posted January 9, 2007 Author #2 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I will admit to being curious why there are , to date, 39 views of this post and yet not one reply. Of all the vocal fellow Atheists on board, of all the theists that are particularly vocal about what our "faith" means to them, not one word about an OT piece, (long I admit, but definitely worth the read), that provides insight into what Atheism means to some. Which means it's not what so many theists out there, think it is. Maybe that can be said for Atheists to. (From the link and in the spirit of "the lords prayer" (per the author)) ATHEIST PRAYER Our Powers are within, Whatever be their name. What they have done, what still may come, This Earth can yet be as Heaven. Live then this day, and without dread, And forgive your own trespasses As you forgive those who trespass against you. And be not led into temptation, But flee away from evil, For Time is the Healer, With power to restore me, Forever and ever, Amen. Atheist Spiritualityby Richard Packham I am often asked (as are many atheists and agnostics, I am sure), But without religion, without the "revealed Word of God," how can you find meaning in life, how can you raise your children to be moral, how can you not despair, how can you have standards? Even those who have decided that the particular doctrines of their religion (such as Christianity or Mormonism) are false, and who now tend to doubt all organized religion, may be wondering about "spirituality," "moral values," "meaning," "Truth," etc. I had the same subject come up recently in a private three-way correspondence between me, an evangelical Christian, and a prominent (almost "official") Mormon apologist. The Christian and I easily agreed that Joseph Smith was a fraud, but then the Christian and the Mormon quickly agreed that, since I was an atheist, I had no ability to understand "spiritual things." I'd like to share a few thoughts that might be helpful to others who are struggling with that apparent contradiction between atheism and spirituality/morality. A new atheist (former Mormon) was recently talking about how awed he is at the miracle of his child growing in his wife's womb, and he wondered if the awe that he felt was somehow a contradiction of his disbelief in God. Others have expressed similar thoughts. Here's my opinion, for what it's worth. One can admire and feel reverent toward the awesome powers of nature, the amazing way in which life reproduces itself, the sheer immensity of time and space, without necessarily imagining that there is "somebody" running it all. It is amazing. It is immense. It is almost beyond human comprehension - although little by little we humans are beginning to understand something about how it works (thanks to science, by the way, and not to religion!). I live on a large piece of land. We have our own forests, hills, meadows, trails and roads, located in an area of Oregon where the climate is very mild. We raise cattle and timber. We are right now in the middle of the spring calving season, during which we will have about 30 calves. We should be used to it, nonchalant about it, by now. But every new calf is a thrill, an excitement, to see it emerge, find its legs, and find the milk. What a miracle! Every element of it is a miracle, and awe-inspiring. To me, it seems over-simplification to suggest that there is somebody who is overseeing every step of this process. It happens by itself, following the patterns that have developed naturally over countless millennia. And it is a neutral process, neither good nor evil. Every once in a while we get a deformed calf, or a dead calf. We don't presume to blame that on "God," which we would have to do - logically - if we thought God was overseeing the production of new life. When I wander in the woods, in the silence broken only by the sounds of the birds and the breezes in the treetops, I find great peace in looking at a wild flower or a tree and realizing that the difference between them and me is so minimal. The purpose of the flower is to be, to grow, to reproduce if possible. Or perhaps it really has no purpose. Nobody cares about it, but it doesn't seem to mind. There's nothing wrong with that, for the flower, or for me. Someone recently mentioned C.S. Lewis' book "Mere Christianity." I am a great admirer of Lewis. He is a talented writer and a great apologist for Christianity. His own life was a model for the "good Christian." However, sometimes (actually, quite frequently) his arguments are faulty. Early in that book he tries to prove that we have an innate sense of being sinful, because we all realize that we fall short of perfection. And if we are not perfect, then we are sinful. I look at my animals, my trees, my rocks, my flowers, my hills. None of them are perfect, none are ideal. But that does not make them sinful in any moral sense. They are all the products of the forces that produced them. And so am I. The bent sapling may try to grow straight, just as I may try to overcome my innate faults. But I am not overcoming any moral fault. I am just struggling to be a better tree. The tree has no reason to feel shame, nor do I. I resent suggestions that, because I don't believe in "God," I cannot possibly have a reverence for life, for the beauties of the mind, for the powers of nature, for the incomprehensibilities of our immense universe, for the mysteries of what we don't know yet and cannot see, that somehow I am to be pitied because I refuse to accept one of thousands of contradictory "revealed" answers to these great mysteries. It's better to go through life without an answer to such questions than to base one's life on a false answer. A friend recently shared her views on this topic with me, and I have her permission to pass them on. She expresses my feelings exactly. This is a beautiful expression of spirituality, by Melissa Hardy: I think we often look too far away for gods and miracles, and ignore the ones all around us. We want to think that we, as a species, are different, that somehow we are endowed by god(s) to do whatever the hell we please with this world. But the world was not created for us (if it was 'created' at all). It exists FOR ITS OWN SAKE, not as a proving ground for future gods or a stage for a cosmic struggle between good or evil, or a playground that one species is meant to use as its personal possession. It is vaster by far, and wilder, and more beautiful than that. There is an elegance in the life cycle of salamanders, of diatoms, of trees, of beetles. In a growing embryo there is more complexity and beauty and holiness than in ten thousand thousand hymns of praise or prayers for sanctification. If you listen, every organism, every species, every cell has its own song, a hymn of praise and holiness more deep and fierce and beautiful than we can even comprehend. And, here is the clincher, the priceless gift of the cosmos. WE ARE PART OF IT! We BELONG here....we are not strangers or sojourners, or even "spiritual beings having an earthly experience." We belong HERE, with our siblings, our relatives, our parents -- the birds of the air and the fish of the sea and the plants of the earth. We are they, and they are us. Each atom in our body is on loan to us from the world, and each atom has been part of innumerable organisms, and will be again. We have been the diatoms. We have been the tulips and the polar bears and the lemurs and the ants and the grass. And we will be the deer and the tiger and the wheat and the E. coli and the penguin. We belong to the system, tangled beyond extrication with every other living thing. Isn't this enough holiness and beauty for all of us? The gods of this earth live in the mitochondria, genes, synaptic gaps of our body. And they live in the grasslands, the deserts, the rivers, the mountains. We are they, and they are us. You are god and gods and parts of gods. We are descended from gods and give birth to gods. They are us, and we are they. We live in a world filled to brimming with gods, and yet we still look beyond the clouds, beyond the stars, beyond ourselves, for a cosmic Easter Bunny who can make all our little dreams come true, when, in reality, we carry the kingdom of heaven within us every moment. It is there, peopled with enzymes and nucleic acids and glycolipids and ionophores. And, although it is within us, we are part of it as well. Heaven is here. The gods are among us. Can an atheist pray? Why not? I don't believe in God - at least not the God as described by the majority of theists - but I DO believe that there is plenty of evidence that we human beings can summon up powers to help us in difficult times. I don't venture to guess whether these powers are within us or outside us, but I don't think it matters what their source is, they are there. And we can benefit from them. Those who believe in God summon up these powers by calling upon God in prayer. Those who do not believe in God use other methods - meditation, visualization, altered states of consciousness, whatever. They work for the believer, and because they sometimes work, the believer's faith is strengthened, because the prayers are answered. They work just as well for the non-believer. I guess what I am saying is that one doesn't have to give up one's access to these powers just because one has given up belief in God. They are still there. I use them, all the time. Whereas I used to address a prayer: "Dear God, please..." I now simply place myself in a meditative state, relax, and put my feelings into words (sometimes only mentally) addressed to whoever or whatever may be listening. Even if it is only some part of my inner self, something happens to bring me peace, self-assurance, confidence. My fears are calmed, my sorrows are soothed, and I am reminded of my unassailable right to my tiny place in the universe, and that somehow everything will turn out all right in the end, or, if it doesn't, it won't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomhit10 Posted January 9, 2007 #3 Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) we will all find out when our life is over what is right and wrong. but as far as the 1938 packard out in space, packard had no way of delivering the car in space to orbit the planet. just a thought..... Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. randomhit10 Edited January 9, 2007 by randomhit10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessWhispers Posted January 9, 2007 Author #4 Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) we will all find out when our life is over what is right and wrong. but as far as the 1938 packard out in space, packard had no way of delivering the car in space to orbit the planet. just a thought..... Exactly! Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. randomhit10 Luke You ever wonder about that!? I mean, really? Yeshua spent all that time, well as much as is to be read between his birth, then again he's 12 and then again when he's in his 30's. Lots of gap space to wonder about in those other years, but regardless of that, he spent all that time speaking to people, performing miracles. He dies on the cross before the eyes of Rome and the masters of the temple that called him blasphemer and when he rises, as promised, he doesn't go before those of the temple to show them he was resurrected!? He doesn't stroll down main street, to send the message he is the son of god, the son of man by which death was but a threshold?! So many say they met jesus, so many that some wrote it down decades later and it gained quite an audience in the read and yet, had he but walked, in that time he was here after resurrection, about to be seen by others, the records of his being would abound. If he wished to spread the word of his god, that would have done it. But as it is, the only record of his beingness is recorded decades later when it was intended to erect idols and temples to the memory of the scribes and the trust/faith, of those that choose to believe. Those that have the eyes to see..... would have had he but come before them. Visible proof of that living god. Edited January 9, 2007 by GoddessWhispers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truethat Posted January 9, 2007 #5 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Anyone using "gods" or theories of "gods" in their spirituality is not an atheist. Seems like as he got older he caved. I am an Atheist and as I become more sure of the fact that God is a human invention the more I pull myself away from the idea of dealing with spirituality as it is known among mankind. Its still based on fear and the unknown. I watched Happy Feet and there is a scene in it where the Penguins brace against the cold winter. It was a harrowing scene and reminded me of the fear of humans in the dark and cold. If spirituality is what helps us deal with this I think it best to turn from it completely and try to just deal with reality rather than sinking back down into coping mechanisms of the weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rev r Posted January 9, 2007 #6 Share Posted January 9, 2007 I can dig that. It echoes a lot of my own thoughts on divinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella-Angelique Posted January 9, 2007 #7 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Article Source These people can be refuted by science: mankind has become so much one family that we cannot insure our own prosperity except by insuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you must resign yourself to seeing others also happy." Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to his preaching--an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers." His first quote is almost consistent with the core teaching of Christianity, which it to do to/for others what you would have others do if you were them. It is not as complete in logic however, as to make genoicidal manics happy is not logical but to wish to be stopped by others if you were a genocidal maniac is. His second quote shows he was certainly a poor biblical scholar as the chief accusation against Yeshua by non-Christian scholars is that his whole behavior was secretive and covert to extreme levels in comparison to many other spiritual teachers in history. I my self have a problem with so many fields of knowlege using opinions and perspectives from the 1700s and 1800s as if these older scholars themselves had some sort of divine and infallible insight on reality that transcends all of the finds made by science and statistical studies since their time. I think it is reflective of our human nature to seek comfort in believing that we have all of the important answers to everything already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessWhispers Posted January 9, 2007 Author #8 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Anyone using "gods" or theories of "gods" in their spirituality is not an atheist. Seems like as he got older he caved. I am an Atheist and as I become more sure of the fact that God is a human invention the more I pull myself away from the idea of dealing with spirituality as it is known among mankind. Its still based on fear and the unknown. I watched Happy Feet and there is a scene in it where the Penguins brace against the cold winter. It was a harrowing scene and reminded me of the fear of humans in the dark and cold. If spirituality is what helps us deal with this I think it best to turn from it completely and try to just deal with reality rather than sinking back down into coping mechanisms of the weak. Might it be observed that an Atheist that implies there is but one way to be a non-theist, is just as indictable as Fundy theists, in matters of applying absolutes to define one class of believers, to what is largely faith in believing one can accept what they think they "know" about intangibles!? Either holding a type of faith or belief/ing, that despite all that exists, there is absolutely no cause for it at all, as in Atheism. As opposed to theists that counter and choose to think there is, and call it _____________!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella-Angelique Posted January 9, 2007 #9 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Is this open to naming? I will put forward Arkdoodlelism from a video game I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truethat Posted January 9, 2007 #10 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Might it be observed that an Atheist that implies there is but one way to be a non-theist, is just as indictable as Fundy theists, in matters of applying absolutes to define one class of believers, to what is largely faith in believing one can accept what they think they "know" about intangibles!? Either holding a type of faith or belief/ing, that despite all that exists, there is absolutely no cause for it at all, as in Atheism. As opposed to theists that counter and choose to think there is, and call it _____________!? There are terms for this, Deists, Buddhists, Agnostics, Taoists etc. Atheist means: a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) pronunciation n. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. If you are using a "theist" explanation for your spirituality then you are not by definition an "a theist" I have noticed a growing trend among people who have a problem with Religion, Sam Harris for example, but want to hold onto the trappings of spirtuality as it has developed in religion. Kind of like accepting that there is no Santa Claus but still wanting to get a present from "Santa" on Christmas. Spirituality when it leans on any theist tradition, whether that be "do unto others etc" or other such teachings are "theist" in nature and thus not atheist. Spirituality connecting with the 'great unknown' in the Universe is still connecting to theist ideology and thus is not atheist but one of the aforementioned categories. I might loathe Richard Dawkins but I do agree with the full stop of backsliding into Religious patterns by way of coping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessWhispers Posted January 9, 2007 Author #11 Share Posted January 9, 2007 "Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to his preaching--an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers." His second quote shows he was certainly a poor biblical scholar as the chief accusation against Yeshua by non-Christian scholars is that his whole behavior was secretive and covert to extreme levels in comparison to many other spiritual teachers in history. Does it? What of, Matthew 11:18-24? What of the fact that jesus said his words were not meant for all people? Implying prejudice. Matthew 13:10-15? So if his words were meant for a select few that he deemed worthy of the hearing of them, how would he not be angered when he was rebuked or repelled by them!? I my self have a problem with so many fields of knowledge using opinions and perspectives from the 1700s and 1800s as if these older scholars themselves had some sort of divine and infallible insight on reality that transcends all of the finds made by science and statistical studies since their time. I think it is reflective of our human nature to seek comfort in believing that we have all of the important answers to everything already. But what would that say to all those ancient holy books held sacred to this day? Those scholars and the materials their field of knowledge reviews, so as to opine the contents, in the first place!? What insight might one have, as the author, from that perspective, in the proper context of that ancient day and age, that would be befitting to relate in a relative context to those contemporary societies thousands of years after it, that read the works today!? How can someone alive in a society thousands of years ago, relate any opinion from that POV or perspective, unto our 21st century society today!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessWhispers Posted January 9, 2007 Author #12 Share Posted January 9, 2007 There are terms for this, Deists, Buddhists, Agnostics, Taoists etc. Atheist means: a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) pronunciation n. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. If you are using a "theist" explanation for your spirituality then you are not by definition an "a theist" I have noticed a growing trend among people who have a problem with Religion, Sam Harris for example, but want to hold onto the trappings of spirituality as it has developed in religion. Kind of like accepting that there is no Santa Claus but still wanting to get a present from "Santa" on Christmas. Spirituality when it leans on any theist tradition, whether that be "do unto others etc" or other such teachings are "theist" in nature and thus not atheist. Spirituality connecting with the 'great unknown' in the Universe is still connecting to theist ideology and thus is not atheist but one of the aforementioned categories. I might loathe Richard Dawkins but I do agree with the full stop of backsliding into Religious patterns by way of coping. Correct, Atheism is a disbelief or denial of god or gods. However, it is not a disbelief or denial in the power or presence of nature/natural forces. This article provides insight into one mans opinion of Atheism as he sees fit to apply it in his life. There is a difference between spirituality and theism. A keyword search of :Atheist Spirituality , provides a great deal of insight into that reality, as is shared by many Atheists that live it. If spirituality is what helps us deal with this I think it best to turn from it completely and try to just deal with reality rather than sinking back down into coping mechanisms of the weak. I could never "settle back down into" anything. I've been an Atheist all my days. As was my family, both sides, all of theirs. Coping mechanisms of the weak? Are you an Atheist? Does that mean that Atheists are stronger than Theists? If so, please elaborate as to how you see that to be the case. I look forward to your thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truethat Posted January 10, 2007 #13 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Coping mechanisms of the weak? Are you an Atheist? Does that mean that Atheists are stronger than Theists? If so, please elaborate as to how you see that to be the case. I look forward to your thoughts. Um did I say Atheists were "STRONGER THAN THEISTS" ? Looks.....no I didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessWhispers Posted January 10, 2007 Author #14 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Um did I say Atheists were "STRONGER THAN THEISTS" ? Looks.....no I didn't. Did I say you said Atheists were stronger than Theists? Or did I simply ask a question, so as to clarify your statement about coping mechanisms for the weak? Does that mean that Atheists are stronger than Theists? And I can read you just fine, so there's really no need for you to yell. And as asked before, are you Atheist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomhit10 Posted January 10, 2007 #15 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Exactly! You ever wonder about that!? I mean, really? Yeshua spent all that time, well as much as is to be read between his birth, then again he's 12 and then again when he's in his 30's. Lots of gap space to wonder about in those other years, but regardless of that, he spent all that time speaking to people, performing miracles. He dies on the cross before the eyes of Rome and the masters of the temple that called him blasphemer and when he rises, as promised, he doesn't go before those of the temple to show them he was resurrected!? He doesn't stroll down main street, to send the message he is the son of god, the son of man by which death was but a threshold?! So many say they met jesus, so many that some wrote it down decades later and it gained quite an audience in the read and yet, had he but walked, in that time he was here after resurrection, about to be seen by others, the records of his being would abound. If he wished to spread the word of his god, that would have done it. But as it is, the only record of his beingness is recorded decades later when it was intended to erect idols and temples to the memory of the scribes and the trust/faith, of those that choose to believe. Those that have the eyes to see..... would have had he but come before them. Visible proof of that living god. Yes i have wondered a lot....Jesus did much of what you say....when you are in a position of power you do not need to prove you are the power...only weakness breeds a needs to prove power....this is a test of faith in what you choose to believe...the scribes, pharisees had all they needed to decide for themselves....they chose one way, i have chosen another....thanks for being polite with your comments...many people are not.... randomhit10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomhit10 Posted January 10, 2007 #16 Share Posted January 10, 2007 (edited) Anyone using "gods" or theories of "gods" in their spirituality is not an atheist. Seems like as he got older he caved. I am an Atheist and as I become more sure of the fact that God is a human invention the more I pull myself away from the idea of dealing with spirituality as it is known among mankind. Its still based on fear and the unknown. I watched Happy Feet and there is a scene in it where the Penguins brace against the cold winter. It was a harrowing scene and reminded me of the fear of humans in the dark and cold. If spirituality is what helps us deal with this I think it best to turn from it completely and try to just deal with reality rather than sinking back down into coping mechanisms of the weak. i like your pic....the movie was good. i do not live in any fear anymore...my belief is not based on what if, dark and cold and gloom...my faith is fed from a position of power, trust, from a source that does not lead us in fear...Jesus Christ is not fear based and anyone who teaches that is wrong and does not know the real Jesus. what is the worst that can happen? i know where i will go and Who will be there waiting...in this coping mechanism i find my strength, in abundance. randomhit10 Edited January 11, 2007 by randomhit10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capeo Posted January 10, 2007 #17 Share Posted January 10, 2007 There are terms for this, Deists, Buddhists, Agnostics, Taoists etc. Atheist means: a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) pronunciation n. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. If you are using a "theist" explanation for your spirituality then you are not by definition an "a theist" I have noticed a growing trend among people who have a problem with Religion, Sam Harris for example, but want to hold onto the trappings of spirtuality as it has developed in religion. Kind of like accepting that there is no Santa Claus but still wanting to get a present from "Santa" on Christmas. Spirituality when it leans on any theist tradition, whether that be "do unto others etc" or other such teachings are "theist" in nature and thus not atheist. Spirituality connecting with the 'great unknown' in the Universe is still connecting to theist ideology and thus is not atheist but one of the aforementioned categories. I might loathe Richard Dawkins but I do agree with the full stop of backsliding into Religious patterns by way of coping. Actually, I'm an atheist and a practicing Zen Buddhist. The two are absolutely compatable. I would definetly disagree that taking the phrase "do unto others..." to heart in anyway makes you a theist. Such phrases are part and parcel with all the humanistic philosphies and such ideas are completely rational if you wish to have a functioning society. The difference is what you perceive as their source. Myself, such phrases and philosopies came from men. Theists think they are divinely inspired. Yet to ignore the lessons someone else's wisdom can provide because you don't agree where they came from to me is irrational and borders more antitheism (which is opposition to theism) rather than atheism. If your atheistic and you read the bible, the sutras, the torah and you see them, as I do, as collections of ancient writing that offer windows into a different time and lessons on the development of culture then how can you not take from them what strikes you as true in a philosophical sense anymore than you would if you were reading Kant? If your truly atheist no source of learning is closed to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessWhispers Posted January 11, 2007 Author #18 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truethat Posted January 11, 2007 #19 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Actually, I'm an atheist and a practicing Zen Buddhist. The two are absolutely compatable. I would definetly disagree that taking the phrase "do unto others..." to heart in anyway makes you a theist. Such phrases are part and parcel with all the humanistic philosphies and such ideas are completely rational if you wish to have a functioning society. The difference is what you perceive as their source. Myself, such phrases and philosopies came from men. Theists think they are divinely inspired. Yet to ignore the lessons someone else's wisdom can provide because you don't agree where they came from to me is irrational and borders more antitheism (which is opposition to theism) rather than atheism. If your atheistic and you read the bible, the sutras, the torah and you see them, as I do, as collections of ancient writing that offer windows into a different time and lessons on the development of culture then how can you not take from them what strikes you as true in a philosophical sense anymore than you would if you were reading Kant? If your truly atheist no source of learning is closed to you. Hmmm antitheism! You learn something new every day! That's great! Reading the texts as a philosophy is also interesting. Its when you start applying mystical application to the words of man that I think you are backsliding into the realm of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessWhispers Posted January 11, 2007 Author #20 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Its when you start applying mystical application to the words of man that I think you are backsliding into the realm of religion. Well then , you're wrong! Sooo kidding. Why does wisdom have to be construed as an inference of religion. Why cant the words of wo/man impart an understanding of something learned by someone else, that then can be taken with someone else as a bit of insight into their own forward journey?! Wisdom isn't religion, religion isn't wisdom. However, if someone feels attuned in some way to all that exists, when no one knows why anything does, how is it wrong for them and how can anyone say it's absolutely not indicitive of Atheism!? Atheism is anti-god. It's not anti-conscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truethat Posted January 11, 2007 #21 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Hmmm antitheism! You learn something new every day! That's great! Reading the texts as a philosophy is also interesting. Its when you start applying mystical application to the words of man that I think you are backsliding into the realm of religion. Its when you start applying MYSTICAL meaning to the words of man that I think you are backsliding into the realm of religion. You can think with your mind and discuss consciousness without having to connect with mysticism. Thinking about things doesn't require Zen or meditation or whatnot. You can simply think about the philosophies. Looks to see where I said anything was "wrong." Hmmm..... I didn't. I also note that capeo stated he or she is a Buddhist which is exactly what I stated. " There are terms for this, its not atheism. Its Buddhism, Taoism, Theism, Agnosticism, etc etc. " Capeo is a Buddhist. So he or she has proven my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessWhispers Posted January 11, 2007 Author #22 Share Posted January 11, 2007 I love your posts, when you project a reason to act defensive and then do. Conscious is conscious. Tag on "buddhism, meditation, zen" and it just proves the point. Wisdom and awareness don't comply to labels. It's, by definition, anti-consciousness that attach's itself to anti-god and imagines the labels mean something, and by inference thereby cancel out anything other than what Atheist means. I feel I must comment on the three star rating on this thread now. Maybe some just don't think it's that much of a topic to remain at the initial 5. But it does remain at the top of the forum. I think that speaks louder than ratings that can really reflect so much more than just the substance of a post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truethat Posted January 11, 2007 #23 Share Posted January 11, 2007 Hmmmm........looks to see where I've projected "defensiveness" can't see it.... One of the reasons a thread stays at the top is because people keep replying to it. Some people refer to this as "bumping" their own thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_(Internet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoddessWhispers Posted January 11, 2007 Author #24 Share Posted January 11, 2007 And some people refer to it as engaging in on board conversation, in topics of interest. Especially when it is one's own thread and which was posted so as to engage that interest. Look again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truethat Posted January 11, 2007 #25 Share Posted January 11, 2007 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now