Atheisms and the supernatural

[PureX]

Based on your comments, I would argue that you are an Agnostic and not a Theist.

I am both.

I am agnostic because there is no possible way I can ascertain the nature or existence of "God". And I am theist because I choose to trust in the benevolence of this mystery, anyway. In fact, I believe many, if not most theists are agnostic.

I believe you use the "Theist" label in much the same way other Agnostics use the "Atheist" label when they are asked to categorize themselves by others.

I agree, but the big difference is in how the agnostic-atheist then tries to logically justify that position. The agnostic-theist can base his theism on faith, rather than on knowledge. But the agnostic-atheist can't do that, because he'd be placing his faith in nothing. Which is illogical.

When communicating with others who have a specific religious belief, you often put the word god in quotes. You are subtly signaling to that person that whatever they think they believe about "God", in your opinion it is most likely untrue, or at the very least quite incomplete.

I use the quotes to differentiate between "God" as a religious depiction, and God as the universal ideal (the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is). I, personally, tend not to define and depict God as so many religions, and many theists do. But that does not mean I don't understand and appreciate why they do it.

Why do Agnostics lean or signal towards either Atheism or Theism? I would argue that for both, there is a recognition that if all of humanity starts paddling in the same direction, we humans will more quickly and efficiently begin to answer that which is unknown and avoid conflict and strife along the way.

I doubt that very much. I think a lot of us are capable of acknowledging our inability to validate or verify our particular chosen god-concepts (theist or atheist). And so we honestly have to admit to our agnosticism, even as we continue to hold onto our opinions and preferences regarding the nature and/or existence of God.

I respectfully suggest that in your case, you are paddling away from what you imagine an atheistic universe to be and mean. Take this comment you made in post #399:

"To deny this is to deny a fundamental aspect of humanity, and to reduce us to being just clever animals. An ideal that I find both insulting, and horrific in it's implications for our future."

I hope you agree that this comment demonstrates strong bias on your part for a "theistic" outcome.

A bias in the sense that I understand and appreciate that humans are more than biological robots, and that the fact that we are more is far more important and significant than the degree to which we are biological robots. As a human being I quite naturally and logically fear and detest inhuman ideology.

We are both in agreement that we human beings, including yourself and me, are imperfect, fallible observers/analyzers. Having a strong bias essentially traps one in confirmation bias.

All humans are trapped by the "bias" of their own understanding. This is unavoidable. But its also why we meet and share our understanding with each other, and allow for discussion and debate for the purpose of broadening that understanding. It won't eliminate the bias, but it helps to keep it more reasoned, and reasonable.

If the goal is to understand how things actually are, as opposed to how we wish them to be, we must strive to abandon bias in all its forms.

That is not the goal, and is not even possible. The goal is to make how things are, and how we wish them to be, as similar as is possible. We cannot be free of bias, nor should we be. But we can learn to recognize it for what it is, accept it, and learn to use it to make things better.

Instead of looking for some ideal, we should abandon the notion of ideal as it relates to trying to understand how things actually are.

"How things actually are" is an incoherent ideal. It implies that something can be something other that what it actually is. But it can't. "How things actually are " is all there is. There is no, "how things aren't".

What you think you're seeking is based on a differentiation that isn't there.

We should look at all we know, however incomplete that is, and use that information to further expand what we know, without expectation of where that knowledge will lead. And in the case of Agnosticism, Theism, Atheism, when we choose a final destination out of hope and desire, we may find ourselves paddling in the wrong direction.

Consider this statement, "If there is/are no supernatural entity/entities, then Philosophy, Art, Religion, Beauty, Mathematics, Wisdom still exist and therefore are inherently derived from human beings themselves."

That statement is quite confused. Here is my correction ...

If there is/are no supernatural entity/entities (to call God), the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, will remain, and will remain the great existential mystery that it is. While art, philosophy, religion, and science will continue to offer mankind their specifically unique means and methods of investigating this great existential mystery. And hopefully, through these investigations, knowledge AND wisdom will be increased (equally). And so, then, the well-being of humanity.

 

[PureX]

Yes. That's the term for it, ignorant. When something doesn't exist (even if people say it millions of times), it doesn't change anything unless that "something" comes into my and others reality for us to agree. We can't take believers word for it but we can discuss the concept of it as many theologists do regardless whether they believe god exists or not.

Why do you take your own word for it? You have no more valid reasoning for your "belief" than the theist does for his, yet you discredit his, and hold fast to your own.

Why?

I think agnostics are more "I can't prove either way" and many are indifferent to it. It's only a big deal to believers not others.

The "big deal" is not what anyone believes or doesn't believe. It's what people assert as true, and how they justify doing so.

It isn't ridiculous if you think objectively. Of course atheists believe there is some sort of mystery to live. We don't know everything.

We don't call it god. That's the difference.

Well, that is truly a 'semantic' argument. What if theists decide to call it "Bob Dobbs", instead, will you be a theist, then?

To me, god (not the god you're thinking of) is a deity-Jehovah, Zues, Yamaya, et cetera. God is a Greek term, if I'm not mistaken, and deities usually talk and have more humanly powers and so forth. When it reads in the dictionary disbelief in gods it doesn't mean "mystery, source of all knowing, and mystery of one's being." It's distinct to deities. Unless you believe in Zues' existence, I assume you're an atheist too?

So your an anti deist, then? As opposed to an atheist?

This seems to be all about the words. If I call God "The Great Existential Mystery" (GEM, for short) will you accept it's existence, then? If I create an icon for this GEM out of the face of Oz (as in the Wizard of, movie) will that cause you to then reject the great existential mystery as being "unreal"? See, I'm confused as to what exactly it is that you're proclaiming not to exist. Is it the great existential mystery? Is it the label "GEM"? Is it the Oz face? Is it the story of the yellow brick road? And why? They're all 'real', aren't they?

But for some reason you all disagree with 1. what it is (person, incarnation, mystic force, deity, spirit, whatever). You disagree with what it does (has scripture? has tradition? experienced in meditation. Read in a book. A manifestation. Pantheism)

It's a world wind of information-now wonder some atheists are confused about religion. Theists....

IT'S A MYSTERY. This is what we humans do when we are confronted with a great and profound mystery. We invent names for it, and assign it a personality, and we try to control it with our own behavior, and we make up stories about it to help us understand it, better, and we prophesize weird scenarios for resolving it. But the mystery remains a mystery. And we continue to define ourselves in the face of it, by how we respond to it. It is, indeed, the inexplicable GEM.

I don't understand how one can say they "know and believe" something exists. I'm not sure what that means spiritually and internally.

It means they have confronted the great mystery of existence that's permeating their lives, and have chosen to interact with it through pretense. I don't find pretense to be a particularly honest or effective way, but it's not for me to judge their choices for themselves. I can only judge my choices, for myself.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Woah. No need to caps and bold. I can read.

Why do you take your own word for it? You have no more valid reasoning for your "belief" than the theist does for his, yet you discredit his, and hold fast to your own.

Why?

Because religion and perspective thereof is personal. I wouldn't assume what you believe just because I talk with other theists who push their belief on me.

Common courtesy.

Please do not put me in the boat with people you dislike.

Challenging you on your view of god is not discrediting it. It just means RF gives us the means to challenge other people on their beliefs without, I hope, the other party taking it as an offense.

The "big deal" is not what anyone believes or doesn't believe. It's what people assert as true, and how they justify doing so.

Okay.... but that doesn't invalidate that both parties have their own truth and no one has the best criteria for it. Each person justifies what they believe is true or fact-things like religion is a highly subjective topic.

I can't expect and don't want you to assume other people's truths and devalue their point of view as ignorant. Don't insult atheists and most likely they won't insult you.

Well, that is truly a 'semantic' argument. What if theists decide to call it "Bob Dobbs", instead, will you be a theist, then?

Don't like your tone.

Atheists do believe life is a mystery but they don't call it god (they don't mystify it or make it into a spiritually context loaded word)

Context PureX.

So your an anti deist, then? As opposed to an atheist?

This seems to be all about the words. If I call God "The Great Existential Mystery" (GEM, for short) will you accept it's existence, then? If I create an icon for this GEM out of the face of Oz (as in the Wizard of, movie) will that cause you to then reject the great existential mystery as being "unreal"? See, I'm confused as to what exactly it is that you're proclaiming not to exist. Is it the great existential mystery? Is it the label "GEM"? Is it the Oz face? Is it the story of the yellow brick road? And why? They're all 'real', aren't they?

No. I didn't know what deist was until I came on RF. Not all atheists have the same background. But if you want to know please ask politely.

Just say mystery of life. Not god or Oz or Bob. Use simple language.

You got to read my posts PureX. I said when I think of god I think of Zues, Jehovah, Yamaya, things like that. I do not believe these exist.

I am not talking about your definition of god just the god described in mythology, the dictionary, and other things like that.

Mystery of life etc is not a deity/god so no one can be an atheists to it unless they believe there is no such thing as a mystery. Many do....

they just don't put religion to it.

No need for saracsm.

IT'S A MYSTERY. This is what we humans do when we are confronted with a great and profound mystery. We invent names for it, and assign it a personality, and we try to control it with our own behavior, and we make up stories about it to help us understand it, better, and we prophesize weird scenarios for resolving it. But the mystery remains a mystery. And we continue to define ourselves in the face of it, by how we respond to it. It is, indeed, the inexplicable GEM.

No need to caps. I'm not blind.

Theists talk of god not as a mystery but as a being, something and someone that can do things, act, and believe stuff. THAT is what atheists are talking about not your definition of god.

Your definition isn't the primary one no more than incarnation and manifestations and consciousness and all. Diversity is the key.

It means they have confronted the great mystery of existence that's permeating their lives, and have chosen to interact with it through pretense. I don't find pretense to be a particularly honest or effective way, but it's not for me to judge their choices for themselves. I can only judge my choices, for myself.

That's religious jargon.

They'd understand it more if you just said there is a mystery to life. We don't know ourselves. We don't know how we got here. Find yourself within. Go in peace.

It's the religious lingo that's really throwing it off. Your definition of god isn't THE definition of god so that's why there's confusion.

 

[ecco]

And atheists seem to always be demanding logical justification from theists

You really need to stop making nonsense comments, unless you think you can support them with facts, which you have not done. I have not seen you quote a single atheist "demanding logical justification from theists". Not one.

They are constantly attacking and condemning theism for theist's lack of logic and subjective justifications, and then hide their own lack of logic and subjective justifications behind, "Oh, we just 'unbelieve'".

There ya go again, building strawman arguments.

Even little children get tired of stacking up blocks just so they knock them down.

You also very distinctly believe that if any God were to exist that you would somehow know of it. Which is quite irrational and logically unfounded.

Yes, it is "quite irrational and logically unfounded". That may be why that is not part of the atheist mindset.

Again, I challenge you to produce some evidence, some comments from actual atheists, to lend credibility to your silly strawman assertions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Unless you already replied to the other one, I'll try to make this shorter.

Why do you assume that God's existence depends on your knowing what/that God is?

Because if it exists, I need to know what it looks like to make the determination that it does.

I fail to see any logical relation between your knowing, and God existing. Seems to me that your not knowing would logically define you as agnostic. Not atheist.

No. You're mixing it around. It's simple.

If I asked who Sandy is, you would say a person (a human being). I ask what Sandy is wearing to find her. You say a blue blouse and a red hat.

So if I look for sandy, I know what I'm looking for. If I find her, I know it's Sandy and not Bill or Rachael.

I would have to know what you're talking about to decide whether what you're saying is true.

But stories don't justify atheism any more than they justify theism. They may explain one's "belief", but belief is not logical justification. And atheists seem to always be demanding logical justification from theists, and from anyone: claiming it's their most cherished and primary criteria for truth.

Well, it makes sense. If you say "god is a mystery," Bon says "god is a deity," Jane says "god is jesus", you're going to want to know what in the heck is going on and provide some sort of proof one person is right and the other is wrong.

But your assumptions are illogical (as a general group), and often "knee-jerk", while you (the general group) demand logic and criticize others (theists) for their lack of it. It always strikes me as very two-faced and disingenuous.

You've got the wrong person PureX. I'm challenging your argument not devaluing your belief.

That's not all they "get at" at all. They are constantly attacking and condemning theism for theist's lack of logic and subjective justifications, and then hide their own lack of logic and subjective justifications behind, "Oh, we just 'unbelieve'"

If you look at their argument and not their emotions, it may be a bit easier or well you may have more tolerance to understand their point of view.

But you (atheists in general) don't just 'unbelieve' at all. You very distinctly believe that gods don't exist. That's not "unbelief". You also very distinctly believe that if any God were to exist that you would somehow know of it. Which is quite irrational and logically unfounded.

You're getting close.

It's irrational to you but if you know something doesn't exist, just because someone tells you it does doesn't make it true. Do you get the logic behind that?

I can debate atheism, itself, as well. But I can never get to that point on here because every atheist I encounter is trying to hide behind this idiotic definition of atheism being "unbelief".

Well, don't discuss the existence and non existence of god as though you're talking to an atheists whose against theism-it's not a fight. You got to let your emotions or judgements go and talk about the actual argument.

 

[MikeF]

I am both.

I am agnostic because there is no possible way I can ascertain the nature or existence of "God". And I am theist because I choose to trust in the benevolence of this mystery, anyway. In fact, I believe many, if not most theists are agnostic.
I agree, but the big difference is in how the agnostic-atheist then tries to logically justify that position. The agnostic-theist can base his theism on faith, rather than on knowledge. But the agnostic-atheist can't do that, because he'd be placing his faith in nothing. Which is illogical.
I use the quotes to differentiate between "God" as a religious depiction, and God as the universal ideal (the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is). I, personally, tend not to define and depict God as so many religions, and many theists do. But that does not mean I don't understand and appreciate why they do it.
I doubt that very much. I think a lot of us are capable of acknowledging our inability to validate or verify our particular chosen god-concepts (theist or atheist). And so we honestly have to admit to our agnosticism, even as we continue to hold onto our opinions and preferences regarding the nature and/or existence of God.
A bias in the sense that I understand and appreciate that humans are more than biological robots, and that the fact that we are more is far more important and significant than the degree to which we are biological robots. As a human being I quite naturally and logically fear and detest inhuman ideology.
All humans are trapped by the "bias" of their own understanding. This is unavoidable. But its also why we meet and share our understanding with each other, and allow for discussion and debate for the purpose of broadening that understanding. It won't eliminate the bias, but it helps to keep it more reasoned, and reasonable.
That is not the goal, and is not even possible. The goal is to make how things are, and how we wish them to be, as similar as is possible. We cannot be free of bias, nor should we be. But we can learn to recognize it for what it is, accept it, and learn to use it to make things better.
"How things actually are" is an incoherent ideal. It implies that something can be something other that what it actually is. But it can't. "How things actually are " is all there is. There is no, "how things aren't".

What you think you're seeking is based on a differentiation that isn't there.
That statement is quite confused. Here is my correction ...

If there is/are no supernatural entity/entities (to call God), the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, will remain, and will remain the great existential mystery that it is. While art, philosophy, religion, and science will continue to offer mankind their specifically unique means and methods of investigating this great existential mystery. And hopefully, through these investigations, knowledge AND wisdom will be increased (equally). And so, then, the well-being of humanity.

Ahh, well all I can say is you are demonstrating classic Orwellian doublethink of which you appear to be doubleplusgood.

And to invoke the word "faith" after endless references to logic, reason, and wisdom. I am surprised but I know I shouldn't be.

I think we have gone as far as we can go. I am quite confident that you are fully aware of the illusory nature of your Philosophical World. I am confident that you understand that philosophy, art, and religion only represent the thoughts and feelings of men and do not provide knowledge. They are the tools with which you paint your Illusory World. You have a personal need for this world, but I do not think you need to be afraid of reality. If you are concerned for the well-being of humanity, the sooner mankind leaves the many illusory worlds behind and realizes it is up to us, all of humanity, to make this world a better place, the sooner it will happen.

 

[PureX]

Because if it exists, I need to know what it looks like to make the determination that it does.

That does not explain anything. What does existing have to do with what you "need to know". Clearly, many things exist whether you, or all of humanity know of them, or not.

It's simple. If I asked who Sandy is, you would say a person (a human being). I ask what Sandy is wearing to find her. You say a blue blouse and a red hat.

So if I look for sandy, I know what I'm looking for. If I find her, I know it's Sandy and not Bill or Rachael.

I would have to know what you're talking about to decide whether what you're saying is true.

It's simple. God is the great existential mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. You can 'identify it' by asking yourself why, how, and to what end existence (and you), exists; and by recognizing that you are unable to provide the answer. Leaving you stuck contemplating the many possibilities, or choosing to just ignore the question.

Well, it makes sense. If you say "god is a mystery," Bon says "god is a deity," Jane says "god is Jesus", you're going to want to know what in the heck is going on and provide some sort of proof one person is right and the other is wrong.

What is going on is that Bon and Jane have confronted the mystery, and are contemplating the many possibilities. 'Trying them on', so to speak, to see which possibility suits them best. It's not about anyone being "right". It's about people finding their place, and their purpose, within this great existential mystery.

Well, don't discuss the existence and non existence of god as though you're talking to an atheists whose against theism-it's not a fight. You got to let your emotions or judgements go and talk about the actual argument.

I will happily do so as soon as I find an atheist who can present me with an actual argument, instead of hiding behind dishonest assertions of their "unbelief". (This comment was not aimed at you.)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That does not explain anything. What does existing have to do with what you "need to know". Clearly, many things exist whether you, or all of humanity know of them, or not.

"Things" ?? Mystery is just an absence of something we don't yet "know" exists. Regardless if it's bob, god, or so have you, by very definition-we don't know. Which from that point makes us agnostics, no?

As long as god is a mystery, your view no longer holds up. By the very nature of the word, we just don't know. The thing is, people who don't believe in god/this mystery are just not making it religious and mystical. They don't call it god.

It's simple. God is the great existential mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. You can 'identify it' by asking yourself why, how, and to what end existence (and you), exists; and by recognizing that you are unable to provide the answer. Leaving you stuck contemplating the many possibilities, or choosing to just ignore the question.

To you it is. That doesn't make it any more true than if 99% believed it. That's a fallacy-you need more than that.

You're going back and forth, though. How do you know god is great etc? How do you put adjectives to something that's a mystery? You can ponder about it but you wouldn't know-it's agnosticism.

No one can provide a answer to a mystery.

The difference is some people see a mystery as something "great and fantastical" others just know they don't know everything about life and settled with the mystery instead of trying to figure it out. None of them are denying or "not answering the question."

Why do people need to believe in this mystery as something grand etc?
Why can't they just be indifferent to it without needing to call it god, bob, etc?

What is going on is that Bon and Jane have confronted the mystery, and are contemplating the many possibilities. 'Trying them on', so to speak, to see which possibility suits them best. It's not about anyone being "right". It's about people finding their place, and their purpose, within this great existential mystery.

But bob may come to a different conclusion than jane when it comes to that. Bob may say "oh. that must be god creating the physical universe-how beautiful" and Jane may say "oh, the physical universe shaped itself well-how beautiful."

They are both justified. Why not?

.... On that last note, which I agree, it makes no sense to say someone is ignorant when each person finds their place and purpose with "or" without this great existential mystery.

Why do people need to find purpose in this mystery???

I will happily do so as soon as I find an atheist who can present me with an actual argument, instead of hiding behind dishonest assertions of their "unbelief". (This comment was not aimed at you.)

Keep in mind you can still talk about a topic you disagree with. Mostly for understanding the topic rather than be convinced otherwise.

 

[PureX]

Please do not put me in the boat with people you dislike.

I don't dislike anyone. I don't even know anyone, here. But I will "call a "spade, a spade" when I see one. Demanding "objective evidence" from theists while refusing to offer any in support of atheism is petty and cowardly. Yet this is exactly what's happening when a self-avowed atheist hides his own lack of "objective evidence" behind these constant, idiotic assertions of "unbelief". And I am not afraid to say so. Nor do I care who feels offended by it.

Challenging you on your view of god is not discrediting it. It just means RF gives us the means to challenge other people on their beliefs without, I hope, the other party taking it as an offense.

By all means, challenge away! I long for it!

Okay.... but that doesn't invalidate that both parties have their own truth and no one has the best criteria for it. Each person justifies what they believe is true or fact-things like religion is a highly subjective topic.

I see very little actual justification going on it any of the discussions, here on RF, between theists and atheists. What I see is mostly a lot of ego-centric, knee-jerk reaction based on emotionally driven defensiveness.

I can't expect and don't want you to assume other people's truths and devalue their point of view as ignorant. Don't insult atheists and most likely they won't insult you.

No one here has any "truth". The best we can get as as humans is 'relative truthfulness'. So let's try for honesty, instead of truth. At least that's a goal we could obtain.

Don't like your tone.

Humor?

Atheists do believe life is a mystery but they don't call it god (they don't mystify it or make it into a spiritually context loaded word)

I don't care what they believe or don't believe. I care about what think, and why they think it.

Just say mystery of life. Not god or Oz or Bob. Use simple language.

It's not a simple phenomenon. It's as profound and complex as humanity, itself. It springs for a simple problem: humans being able to ask themselves questions that we are unable to answer. But how we choose to respond to that dilemma is as varied as we are.

You got to read my posts PureX. I said when I think of god I think of Zues, Jehovah, Yamaya, things like that. I do not believe these exist.

The list of things any of us do not believe exists is literally infinite. And of no consequence.

I am not talking about your definition of god just the god described in mythology, the dictionary, and other things like that.

But to talk about those myths with any authority, you'd have to understand the cultural origin and purpose of the various myths, which almost no one does. Standing them up just to knock down as being "mythical" is just a waste of everyone's time. So is looking to the dictionary for an accurate understanding of reality. That's not what dictionaries record.

Mystery of life etc is not a deity/god so no one can be an atheists to it unless they believe there is no such thing as a mystery. Many do....

The mystery of being IS a conceptualized as a deity for a great many humans, and has been since the dawn of humanity.

Theists talk of god not as a mystery but as a being, something and someone that can do things, act, and believe stuff. THAT is what atheists are talking about not your definition of god.

There are all kinds of theists, and all kinds of ways of conceptualizing God. People are choosing whatever way they feel works best for them. What does it say about you if you keep pointing out the ones that you find most absurd, and then use them to proclaim them all worthless and untrue?

None of us has the answer to the mystery. But we are all defining ourselves by how we are responding to it.

Your definition isn't the primary one no more than incarnation and manifestations and consciousness and all. Diversity is the key.

Actually, it is. The definition I gave you would be accepted by the vast majority of theists. They would of course want to 'add on' to it. But they would accept the basic idea of the 'Divine Mystery'.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't dislike anyone. I don't even know anyone, here. But I will "call a "spade, a spade" when I see one. Demanding "objective evidence" from theists while refusing to offer any in support of atheism is petty and cowardly.

Yet this is exactly what's happening when a self-avowed atheist hides his own lack of "objective evidence" behind these constant, idiotic assertions of "unbelief". And I am not afraid to say so. Nor do I care who feels offended by it.

Take out the demanding since that's emotional context for you. If you said you had a pen in your hand (one of my favorite examples) and I saw nothing, I would not believe you. If you said, "but look! There it is," wouldn't it be in my right to ask you to prove something you said exists that I cannot see?

It doesn't help to tell me I'm blind and it should be obvious. That's deflecting the point rather than addressing and clarifying the claim.

It has nothing to do with the particular atheist. It just means you say something is true, we don't know, you clarify it, we agree or disagree, and that's that. I think you're lost in the clarification part though.

By all means, challenge away! I long for it!

So far I'm doing so. I'm getting lost finding your point without putting atheists (the people) in the mix since we have so many varied opinions its hard to discredit our views as a unit.

I see very little actual justification going on it any of the discussions, here on RF, between theists and atheists. What I see is mostly a lot of ego-centric, knee-jerk reaction based on emotionally driven defensiveness.

You're comparing the truth of an argument based on the people who argue about it?

Did you want to talk about the argument or the people who argue?

No one here has any "truth". The best we can get as as humans is 'relative truthfulness'. So let's try for honesty, instead of truth. At least that's a goal we could obtain.

So why would atheists (people who don't believe god exist) their argument be wrong or ridiculous if we don't have the truth just relative truthfulness?

Do we have our own relative beliefs or is one belief true and the other ridiculously false?

Humor

Hard to pick that up online. Sounds like sarcasm.

I don't care what they believe or don't believe. I care about what think, and why they think it.

Most of what people think is what they believe. Maybe you mean you care more about their argument and not their opinions?

If so, these posts sound like its more about their opinions.

It's not a simple phenomenon. It's as profound and complex as humanity, itself. It springs for a simple problem: humans being able to ask themselves questions that we are unable to answer. But how we choose to respond to that dilemma is as varied as we are.

I know it sounds profound to many people but not all people see it that way. Relative truth?

Just because something is great and profound for you does not mean it is for others. Which this actually is the core of religious debates. Why can't non-religious people see the "awe" religious people experience. Other thread have the same basically without either realizing the same intensity of experience doesn't need to be mystical in origin.

Why does everyone need to know or believe that the mystery is "profound?"

Why not indifference, equality, curiosity, and such?

The list of things any of us do not believe exists is literally infinite. And of no consequence.

Just when you say god I don't think of mystery since most people's religion has some form of physical, mythological, incarnational form to it. Consciousness I somewhat get since it's not a deity in its own right, but not Zues and Bahaullah.

I understand the "mystery of life" in context. I don't make it a god.
Why should I? What's the purpose of raising this mystery above myself?

But to talk about those myths with any authority, you'd have to understand the cultural origin and purpose of the various myths, which almost no one does. Standing them up just to knock down as being "mythical" is just a waste of everyone's time. So is looking to the dictionary for an accurate understanding of reality. That's not what dictionaries record.

With the gods Greek, African, etc, yes. One would need to know the origin. I really don't have the time to go through the origin of all beliefs, Jehovah included. But they seem so far fetched (like saying there is another life on planet Zion) that to even say "I don't know" is really pushing it.

The mystery of being IS a conceptualized as a deity for a great many humans, and has been since the dawn of humanity.

True for many people but not all. There are many people who believe in gods as actual deities-some forms of Paganisms, for example, actually believe in deities. I wouldn't throw it out the crib just because majority of people personify the mystery of life.

But remember, people who do not believe god exists are not saying they don't believe life has no mystery. They just don't personify it as a religious concept. Many are indifferent to it if they're not studying the nature of it or philosophizing, maybe.

There are all kinds of theists, and all kinds of ways of conceptualizing God. People are choosing whatever way they feel works best for them. What does it say about you if you keep pointing out the ones that you find most absurd, and then use them to proclaim them all worthless and untrue?

So why wouldn't atheists be confused? Why blame them?

None of us has the answer to the mystery. But we are all defining ourselves by how we are responding to it.

We do so in many ways from religion to science others are indifferent to it.

Why is it "that" important to know?

Actually, it is. The definition I gave you would be accepted by the vast majority of theists. They would of course want to 'add on' to it. But they would accept the basic idea of the 'Divine Mystery'.

I can see that. I think atheists take out the divine (great, lord, etc) and just say "we don't know" or "let's study it" or "I experience awe."

Why does the mystery have to be religious in order to say "I know 'it' exists" and there it is?

 

[PureX]

Take out the demanding since that's emotional context for you. If you said you had a pen in your hand (one of my favorite examples) and I saw nothing, I would not believe you. If you said, "but look! There it is," wouldn't it be in my right to ask you to prove something you said exists that I cannot see?

C'mon. We're not talking about a pen that you can seen.

It has nothing to do with the particular atheist. It just means you say something is true, we don't know, you clarify it, we agree or disagree, and that's that. I think you're lost in the clarification part though.

How is the source, sustenace, and purpose of existence not a mystery? How is it not of the greatest significance to our lives? How is arguing with the labels and images other people use to deal with it helpful to you or I? Or even to them?

Why does everyone need to know or believe that the mystery is "profound?"

They don't "need" to. But 98% of humanity does. And the mystery remains, and profoundly effects you whether you find it profound or not.

I understand the "mystery of life" in context. I don't make it a god.
Why should I? What's the purpose of raising this mystery above myself?

It is "above" yourself. You are part of 'existence'. You are part of the mystery. It's your origin, sustenance, and purpose that is unknown to you, too.

There are many people who believe in gods as actual deities-some forms of Paganisms, for example, actually believe in deities. I wouldn't throw it out the crib just because majority of people personify the mystery of life.

What people "believe" is irrelevant to the subject at hand. People "believe" all kinds of things. No one cares, but them

But remember, people who do not believe god exists are not saying they don't believe life has no mystery. They just don't personify it as a religious concept.

I'm not here to debate religion. I'm here to discuss theism. Religions are reactions to theism.

I think atheists take out the divine (great, lord, etc) and just say "we don't know" or "let's study it" or "I experience awe."

No, they want to discredit and dismiss it. They don't just "unbelieve", they believe the idea of the Divine Mystery is false, and foolish, and unnecessary. And they want everyone else to know they believe this.

Why does the mystery have to be religious in order to say "I know 'it' exists" and there it is?

It doesn't, and it isn't. This isn't about religion. Why can't you discuss this without constantly dragging religion into it?

 

[MikeF]

I read that atheism is always connected to the belief that there is no supernatural rather than just disbelief in deities (Zues, Jehovah, et cetera-not-force and cosmos et cetera). It is also said because these two are not based on objective evidence, there is no reason to believe it (thereby the basis of being an atheist comes from, supposedly).

My questions are:

Does atheism need to be connected with disbelief in all the supernatural (an addition to the definition perhaps?)

Also, does atheism need to refer to disbelief based only of lack of evidence and no other reason but just not believing deities exist?

I know the definition of atheism-the strict definition that is-though I read a common consensus on RF that it goes beyond that. Hence the questions.

After some discussion on this thread, I thought I would go back to your OP and provide some thoughts based on those conversations.

To start, it is clear to me based on the way we human beings use and develop language, that any word or label can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean for themselves. The difficult part when communicating with others, is that when we use a word or label, we in some way need to convey what exactly we mean when we use that word. For efficiency, we often rely on standard, common definitions for words, such that each use of a word does not require its specific definition to follow it. Often, words that convey simple ideas can be used creatively, outside their common definition, and their altered meaning is deciphered by looking at the context in which it is used.

All this is more difficult in an academic discussion on a complex idea. As in the phrase, "comparing apples to apples", in an academic discussion, the word "apple" has to have the same meaning and be used the same way if its not to be followed by the users unique, explicit definition. This is the case for the word Atheism. If we look at the Wikipedia definition for Atheism we can see a range of meanings represented even in academic usage. The only way to be clear, is to provide a concise definition of what that word means for you, unless the conversation involves those who are in mutual agreement on its meaning. This also means that we cannot assume we understand what someone means when they use the word Atheism until we get a feel for how they use the word in context or their explicit definition.

On a separate note, it looks as if it may be argued that there are no Atheists anyway; that all Atheist are actually Agnostics. Perhaps a separate thread for that.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

C'mon. We're not talking about a pen that you can seen.

I know. I just wanted you to get the logic behind it.

How is the source, sustenace, and purpose of existence not a mystery? How is it not of the greatest significance to our lives? How is arguing with the labels and images other people use to deal with it helpful to you or I? Or even to them?

I think this comment was supposed to be an answer to one of the comments I made below.

I said: It has nothing to do with the particular atheist. It just means you say something is true, we don't know, you clarify it, we agree or disagree, and that's that. I think you're lost in the clarification part though."

Referring to the logic above, if you said god exists.
I said what is god?
You say you tell me since you don't believe it exists.
I say, huh?

I'd say that dialogue is illogical, no?
How can I prove something does not exist if you haven't given me any definition and evidence that it does? (Shortest example I can muster.)

Replace god with anything, the logic is the same. Not sure why theists do it.

They don't "need" to. But 98% of humanity does. And the mystery remains, and profoundly effects you whether you find it profound or not.

98% doesn't mean 100%. That's a fallacy and doesn't make it true no more if 1% believed and 99% don't.

I'm still don't know how a mystery can profoundly affect on anyone? (Or Should, rather)

They can feel they are affected by it thereby need to know the answers or establish religions (spiritual traditions and practices) to explain it; that's one thing.

(It's a whole 'nother thing to say people are blind for not seeing it profound themselves.)

Of course life is a mystery. It's puzzling. It can make someone go crazy or others look to earth and are indifferent about it. What's wrong with these varied views?

It is "above" yourself. You are part of 'existence'. You are part of the mystery. It's your origin, sustenance, and purpose that is unknown to you, too.

What do you mean by "above"?

I don't see anything above myself (I don't see hierarchy in my spiritual life-I see equality and interconnection).

I can see that-many people need purpose and feel the mystery of their being is the call for finding it-but there are many who feel this just does not exist....

Meaning, they don't see the mystery of life and themselves as cosmic, profound, above all, thereby they don't need to call it labels, no traditions, and no reason to believe in something/someone else in order to identify with this mystery.

What people "believe" is irrelevant to the subject at hand. People "believe" all kinds of things. No one cares, but them

You included, no?

I'm not here to debate religion. I'm here to discuss theism. Religions are reactions to theism.

I like the discussion on mystery because it gets to the heart of the matter without trying to jump hoops on incarnations, mythologies, gods and goddesses, etc. When people think of theism, they don't think specific to mystery because-to them/you-it's too profound to think about so they build concepts around it. It's easier to speak from concept and tradition (christ, scripture, etc) then to speak of what these things are based on in itself.

No, they want to discredit and dismiss it. They don't just "unbelieve", they believe the idea of the Divine Mystery is false, and foolish, and unnecessary. And they want everyone else to know they believe this.

Am I a needle in a haystack?

It looks like you're generalizing again. They believe the concept of god (being/incarnation/entity/force) is foolish not a mystery. They don't believe the mystery of life is divine and religiously profound.

I think you're debating with them and their definition of god is totally different than yours-which is unconventional than all other definitions Ive heard from abrahamic theists.

It doesn't, and it isn't. This isn't about religion. Why can't you discuss this without constantly dragging religion into it?

Say spiritual, the question is the same. You're hung up on words: I asked why does the mystery have to be religious in order to say "I know 'it' exists" and there it is?

Instead, why does the mystery need to have spiritual jargon and traditions (divine, profound, prayer, and all of this) in order to "know it exists"?

Why can't people just believe life is a mystery without attaching anything to it (divine, profound, and all of that)?

 

[PureX]

I know. I just wanted you to get the logic behind it.

What logic? You're demanding sensual/physical evidence for an entity that would by definition transcend these phenomena. How is that logical?

Referring to the logic above, if you said god exists.
I said what is god?

And I said God is the great mystery; source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. A mystery that is self-evident, because everything that exists leads us to ask ourselves these fundamental questions about the source, sustenance and purpose of it all. Questions that we cannot answer. Thus, the mystery.

How can I prove something does not exist if you haven't given me any definition and evidence that it does? (Shortest example I can muster.)

I just gave you, yet again, the definition AND the evidence. But you keep ignoring it.

I still don't know how a mystery can profoundly affect anyone? (Or Should, rather)

Well, we humans survive and thrive by understanding our environment well enough to manipulate it, and ourselves, to our own advantage. That's our big edge over the other life forms on the Earth. So that when we find ourselves with questions about our circumstances and our environment that we can't answer, it makes us feel very nervous, and vulnerable, and frustrated, and we tend to react to that predicament in all kinds of ways. Some ways positive and helpful, and some downright self-destructive.

In this case the unknown we are being confronted with is the ultimate unknown. It's the unknown that underpins everything else. So it matters, a lot, to a whole lot of people.

Of course life is a mystery. It's puzzling. It can make someone go crazy or others look to earth and are indifferent about it. What's wrong with these varied views?

I don't know. I'd have to have the answer to the mystery to answer that question. And I don't. But I do know that how we choose to respond to the dilemma tends to then define who we are, and how we live, and how we treat each other. So how we choose to respond to this great mystery is important to all of us.

What do you mean by "above"? I don't see anything above myself (I don't see hierarchy in my spiritual life-I see equality and interconnection). I can see that-many people need purpose and feel the mystery of their being is the call for finding it-but there are many who feel this just does not exist....

I meant an existential hierarchy: from the source to the expression to the result.

Meaning, they don't see the mystery of life and themselves as cosmic, profound, above all, thereby they don't need to call it labels, no traditions, and no reason to believe in something/someone else in order to identify with this mystery.

What they choose not to see, and why they do so, is their own business. Who they become as a result, is all our business.

I like the discussion on mystery because it gets to the heart of the matter without trying to jump hoops on incarnations, mythologies, gods and goddesses, etc. When people think of theism, they don't think specific to mystery because-to them/you-it's too profound to think about so they build concepts around it. It's easier to speak from concept and tradition (christ, scripture, etc) then to speak of what these things are based on in itself.

Once you understand the artifice in relation to the mystery, those things make a lot more sense. But you have to stop fighting against and dismissing them based on their being artificial. And then look at what they are intending to actually represent. Because that's what artifice is all about.

It looks like you're generalizing again. They believe the concept of god (being/incarnation/entity/force) is foolish not a mystery. They don't believe the mystery of life is divine and religiously profound.

Yes, they are, indeed, fools. I agree. Pretending to know what they can't know, just so they can tell everyone else they're wrong, and stupid.

I think you're debating with them and their definition of god is totally different than yours-which is unconventional than all other definitions Ive heard from abrahamic theists.

I understand artifice, is all. (I'm an artist.) So I can see through the myths and symbols and metaphors and parables to the substance; of fear, and the faith, and of desire. And if I can do it so can anyone else ... if they're willing. But first, ya gotta stop jousting at the windmills because some theist proclaimed them to be dragons. And few atheists, it seems, are willing to stop that jousting.

Why can't people just believe life is a mystery without attaching anything to it (divine, profound, and all of that)?

Because people are people. They want their existence to mean something. They want their existence to have a higher purpose than just to survive, or have fun until it's over. They want existence to be 'Divine'. And for them, it IS Divine. Why WOULDN'T anyone want that? (That's the real question.)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I quote and go from top to bottom. So if I asked a question you've already answered, it may be because I haven't gotten to that answer yet. Instead of jumping up and down fixing my responses, I let it be.

What logic? You're demanding sensual/physical evidence for an entity that would by definition transcend these phenomena. How is that logical?

I'm not demanding evidence at all.

I'm showing you how silly it is to ask someone who doesn't believe god exist to prove that he doesn't. If you haven't asked an atheist to prove why there isn't a god, then the analogy wouldn't apply to you.

And I said God is the great mystery; source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. A mystery that is self-evident, because everything that exists leads us to ask ourselves these fundamental questions about the source, sustenance and purpose of it all. Questions that we cannot answer. Thus, the mystery.

You cut up the dialogue. It's meant to be read as a whole and links to comment I mentioned above.

Not everyone believes god is a mystery-they actually Do believe god is a human being-in the flesh. They Do believe god is inseparable from physical idols. They actually -do- believe god Is the physical universe.

Atheists are arguing from "that" perspective not from your definition of god.

I just gave you, yet again, the definition AND the evidence. But you keep ignoring it.

You're talking to the "wrong" atheist. Please don't put me in that category.

Some of what I'm saying are rhetorical questions to support my point not asking you to answer every statement that has a question mark. Like everything, read it in context. Try not to separate my points/quotes too much because you'll miss it (example above).

Also. Please don't make accusatory assumptions "you keep ignoring it." Ask first so you don't have to repeat yourself.

Well, we humans survive and thrive by understanding our environment well enough to manipulate it, and ourselves, to our own advantage. That's our big edge over the other life forms on the Earth. So that when we find ourselves with questions about our circumstances and our environment that we can't answer, it makes us feel very nervous, and vulnerable, and frustrated, and we tend to react to that predicament in all kinds of ways. Some ways positive and helpful, and some downright self-destructive.

I can see that. Of course this is true for everyone on earth, but the difference is not every individual interprets it the way you and other people do. Some of us are indifferent about it. Nothing wrong with that, right?

In this case the unknown we are being confronted with is the ultimate unknown. It's the unknown that underpins everything else. So it matters, a lot, to a whole lot of people.

But not everyone sees the unknown in this manner.

No one is saying (no atheists, theist, etc) are saying there is no mystery in life. We just have different ways we explain it, our relationship with it (if there is one) is different, and some of us it's just not a big determiner of how we live our lives.

Some of us just don't put it as a high point in our lives if not at all.

Why is that wrong?

I don't know. I'd have to have the answer to the mystery to answer that question. And I don't. But I do know that how we choose to respond to the dilemma tends to then define who we are, and how we live, and how we treat each other. So how we choose to respond to this great mystery is important to all of us.

Some people, not all. That's my point.

I meant an existential hierarchy: from the source to the expression to the result.

Mystery to ?? to result?

Can you clarify?

What they choose not to see, and why they do so, is their own business. Who they become as a result, is all our business.

They know there is a mystery.

They don't mystify it (great, powerful, profound, etc). No adjectives. It is what it is.

Is that wrong?

Once you understand the artifice in relation to the mystery, those things make a lot more sense. But you have to stop fighting against and dismissing them based on their being artificial. And then look at what they are intending to actually represent. Because that's what artifice is all about.

Would you say christ is artificial?

I don't know if many people who do not believe in god understand god from a mystery-perspective. It's really not their fault, but the fault of the many theists with thousands of definitions of god that, unless they are reflective and have a lot of time on their hands, they probably won't think of it as a mystery. One because not everyone is philosophical, and two, when someone says "christ is god" and christ is a human, they tend to believe what they are told and how they are told. So, it's really not their fault.

Yes, they are, indeed, fools. I agree. Pretending to know what they can't know, just so they can tell everyone else they're wrong, and stupid.

Wow. Wow. If you can get beyond the bias, we can get a bit more into this.

I understand artifice, is all. (I'm an artist.) So I can see through the myths and symbols and metaphors and parables to the substance; of fear, and the faith, and of desire. And if I can do it so can anyone else ... if they're willing. But first, ya gotta stop jousting at the windmills because some theist proclaimed them to be dragons. And few atheists, it seems, are willing to stop that jousting.

We're not talking about what some atheists do. At least I hope?

Because people are people. They want their existence to mean something. They want their existence to have a higher purpose than just to survive, or have fun until it's over. They want existence to be 'Divine'. And for them, it IS Divine. Why WOULDN'T anyone want that? (That's the real question.)

But what about those people who don't see the mystery of life as Divine?

Why is that wrong or foolish?

(The argument not the person who says it)