What Atheists Do Not Grasp--and Why

[Cacafire]

Driving through the hills of southern California in the summer is like driving through the folds in a blanket of golden velvet. Up close, though, you see only thorns and brambles. View a mosaic from a distance and the image is clear and beautiful; up close, the image is lost in a jumble isolated bits and pieces.

In the same way, an extremely large, complex and highly automatic-appearing mechanism naturally conceals the intelligence behind it from any and all inhabits very far below the level of the Originator. Therefore, is it inevitable that universe mechanisms would appear mindless to the lower orders intelligences such as man. Making it a conclusion, however, is a matter of philosophy rather than one of evidence or experience.

Assuming the presence of an Originator, it would be a kind of intellectual rape if It compelled in any way, from within or from without, recognition of it by creatures that incapable or unwilling to explore life beyond the most coarse elements of life— physical sensation, emotion and intellect— and cruel to give the same creature a strong desire for knowledge placed beyond his reach. Hence, there is religion. And while wholly natural, it is also optional.

Rationalism’s concept of perfection does not admit to a yearning and need for completion— the disclosure of Totality in the self and the self in Totality. It prefers the perfection of a stone, a perfection in which the relationship between the part and the Whole which is not a drama of two that finds resolution in a third. Religion, on the other hand, is Spirit acting in cooperation with the human mind and gives birth to a living, immortal soul. To rationalism this is superstition. It simply cannot relate to the symbolic character of the language employed by religion any more than an ape can relate to the meaning contained in a book. Even amongst religionists, conditioned to revere objectivity above personal experience, the concept of the union of two natures—God in man and man in God—is confusing.

Religion is by no means a disclosure or experience of anything in the world of things. God is not an object or thing, but spirit. One cannot experience or enter into communion with spirit through any sort of objectification. God is life, and his Being comes to light after the division of subject and object. A doctrine that professes to meet the needs of abstract reason kills God, so to speak, by depriving him of a dynamic presence in the interior life.

Those are some very big words you have used, but the abillity to form a grammatically correct sentence does not embue that sentence with meaning derived from the real world. Regardless of what atheists may or may not do, you have shown yourself to have arrogant pity for those who do not share whatever it is you are trying to say.

As far as I can make out, god is not anything at all like anything human's can experience in the material world. But since all human knowledge comes from experiential impressions it is impossible to know god except by some "being" god, or whatever you are talking about.

Sadly, the entire human mechanism can be broken down to individual components, none of which house a soul. There is no soul throughout the totality of the human, either, because it would not be needed, seing as all the parts of the human mechanism conform to mechanical and chemical laws. But you needn't concern yourself with that. Anything you come up with, so long as you say it in an arrogant and scornful tone, shall be sufficient to house the fact that what you say is simply grammatically correct without having any real meaning.

I have been one person who has come up against the limitations of my own existence. I have direct knowledge of that, so I can hardly believe that what you say is real. It is simply the pop-paranormal/buddhist cosmology that people have come up with over the centures. But it's still a part of the limitations of your own existence. Because it centers in your own personal mythology. The transcendent is a crucial character in the cast of psychological entities, but it is no more above reality that that rock over there.

I'm sure you are very proud of yourself for coming to the conclusion you have. You now know why atheists do not grasp. What you do not grasp however, is that you're pride of being in knowledge is just another form existent in this universe, limited by the giant black box that is being.

 

[Yerda]

The excitation of the “God spot” at the front of the brain can be interpreted as a religious experience. Such excitation can occur naturally or be artificially induced. The artificially induced experiences are not life-transforming, that is, they do not cause a major shift in the course of the experiencer's life. Those that occur naturally can be can be the result of the brain malfunctioning, but there are a variety of religious experiences. Attributing such experience to God may be just a matter of interpretation, but it is not the place for anyone but the most arrogant to call the experience a delusion or the interpreter deluded.

Even so, What is to be done with the “I am God” experience of unity described in The Impersonal Life? In separation, God is something to be attained or found that is not an all-or-nothing sort of thing. But once found or unity attained, God disappears. Is God therefore an illusion because he disappears in the end?

The thrust of the atheistic argument, for the most part, is that the believer is deluded or makes it all up. Atheists seem incapable of grasping the idea that theology is philosophy applied to the God-experience, even if partial or seen “through a glass, darkly.” The "why" is simple: they “live in interesting times.” They are distracted and don't pay attention to the things that really matter.

Firstly, I think that was a good post.

However, I know a man who pulled his own eye out because he was seeing "evil visions" and felt God wanted him to remove the offending organ. He also jumped from a fourth-storey window but I'm not sure he blames God for that one. When he was sectioned under the Mental Health Act, was the psychiatric professional guilty of this arrogance?

I certainly think he was suffering from a deluded state of mind, although he disagrees himself. Few theists claim to communicate in such a literal fashion with any deity, but there are those who do. What do you make of that?

They are distracted and don't pay attention to the things that really matter.

If I were to make that statement about any other group I would be immediately berated and perhaps labelled as a bigot. In any case, 'the things that really matter' is a personal judgement. I consider my fellow humans to be of the primary importance, and I think I act accordingly.

 

[camanintx]

Not at all. I'm only saying that science is open-ended. Science can't say one way or the other.

So if science only deals with matter, energy and their properties, then how can it not support materialism?

 

[logician]

"The thrust of the atheistic argument, for the most part, is that the believer is deluded or makes it all up. Atheists seem incapable of grasping the idea that theology is philosophy applied to the God-experience, even if partial or seen “through a glass, darkly.”

The idea that most theists put this much thought into the "god-experience" is what is deluded.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Few theists claim to communicate in such a literal fashion with any deity, but there are those who do. What do you make of that?

Things have to judged according to their merit. Best as I can recall, Jesus never went around trying to pull out his eye and he refused to take a leap in order to prove his divinity. Many, I'm sure, thought Jesus was a harmless fanatic--at least the Romans did. He was put to death only at the urging of those religious authorities whose authority was threatened by his teachings.

If I were to make that statement about any other group I would be immediately berated and perhaps labelled as a bigot.

Is that as bad as being called "deluded"? "May you live in interesting times" is a curse precisely for the reason I intimated. It may be an inaccurate assessment of the situation, but how often is the virtue of wisdom mentioned in even the finest schools? What I said applies to many theists, also, as they are functionally atheists.

In any case, 'the things that really matter' is a personal judgement. I consider my fellow humans to be of the primary importance, and I think I act accordingly.

Absolutely! But I can't help but notice that what was important to me while in my teens is laughable now. Or, if it's still a matter of importance, experience has taught to think about it quite differently.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

So if science only deals with matter, energy and their properties, then how can it not support materialism?

It does, but only up to a point. That's what I mean by "open-ended." This only means that atheists cannot say that science does not allow for spiritual realities (as Cacafire attempts to do). It does, although it can't be used as evidence for them.

I suppose that most atheists would take the stance that religious experience is either delusion or make-believe. What other stance could they logically take? Just as I don't believe the Prophets of various religions actually communed with God because I don't believe that there is a God to commune with, I must accept alternative explanations for "spiritual" experiences on the same ground. Perhaps we have different definitions of deluded though?

Considering that I have been in the "shoes of the religionist" I would have to disagree with you, I find in my godless beliefs all the "spiritual" experiences I ever had as a Gnostic and more.
And I find that site very difficult reading, even with my background in Gnosticism/Mysticism, it reeks of egotism rather than true enlightenment, to me anyway.


I have to disagree with you once again, I hold many concepts as higher than myself and although I do not worship them I would wager that their relationship to me is as strong as many theist's relationships with their God.

You seem unable to to grasp that you're committing the same sin as you attribute to atheists, you seem unable to step into the shoes of an atheist and see the world though their eyes as much as you accuse atheists of being unable to experience a "religionists" point of view.

[FONT=Georgia, serif]What follow is I guess what you might say is a personalizing (some might say a grave misrepresentation) of a small portion of Fides et Ratio. [/FONT]


[FONT=Georgia, serif]From birth, we are immersed in traditions which give us not only language and culture, but also a range of truths in which we believe almost instinctively as fundamental. Yet personal growth and maturity imply that these same truths can be cast into doubt and evaluated through a process of critical inquiry. It may be that truths lost through this transition can be recovered, in a modified form, as a result of experience or by dint of further reasoning. Nonetheless, there are many “truths” which are believed without personal verification. Who, for instance, can critically assess t he countless scientific findings upon which modern life is based? Who can personally examine the flow of information which comes day after day from all parts of the world and which is generally accepted as true? Who, beginning from scratch, can forge anew the paths of experience and thought which have yielded the treasures of human wisdom and religion? This means that even those who claim to live by certainty also live by belief.[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Georgia, serif]Man will always be in the position of being able to believe more than he can know. Unlike the empirical sciences, truths sought in relationships between man and Reality are not primarily empirical or even philosophical. They are relational. In believing, we entrust ourselves to the knowledge acquired by other people. This suggests a tension between the personal accumulation of evidence on the one hand, and on the other hand knowledge acquired through belief. This brings into play not only a person's capacity to know, but also the deeper capacity to entrust oneself to others, to enter into a relationship with them. [/FONT]​

​

[FONT=Georgia, serif]Knowledge, then, is not merely the accumulation of facts, but is also grounded on the trust between persons. [/FONT][FONT=Georgia, serif]My perfection in God is, and has always been, whole and complete; its realization and manifestation in matter and the universe of space and time is is not. If something like The Urantia Book helps me discriminate between the human and the divine, the imperfect and the perfect, then so be it. That doesn't mean I believe it is a factual representation of things as they are even if I do draw upon it either for insight or explanatory notes.[/FONT]​

​

[FONT=Georgia, serif]I'm not questioning the validity of mystical experience without God, only its relative completeness and philosophical consistency--which, by the way, you did not address.

As for not stepping into the shoes of the atheist...sorry, but I've been there.

[/FONT][FONT=Georgia, serif]


[/FONT]​

 

[The Voice of Reason]

[FONT=Georgia, serif]As for not stepping into the shoes of the atheist...sorry, but I've been there. [/FONT]​

So, after all of this, you are basing your claims about atheism (in general) on your personal experiences as an atheist?

Do you presume that all atheists (or even a simple majority) are so similar to the person that you once were? That they, in effect, lack the curiousity to have at least conducted a search?

​

 

[Sunstone]

As for not stepping into the shoes of the atheist...sorry, but I've been there.

I feel grateful to you that you are no longer a non-theist. That means non-theism is somewhat safe from you. Because, as a theist, you have done more to lower my opinion of theism than anyone else on this board -- in all my years here. That's no exaggeration. You have really done that.

 

[McBell]

I feel grateful to you that you are no longer a non-theist. That means non-theism is somewhat safe from you. Because, as a theist, you have done more to lower my opinion of theism than anyone else on this board -- in all my years here. That's no exaggeration. You have really done that.

Shouldn't he get an award for that?
I would vote for it

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I feel grateful to you that you are no longer a non-theist. That means non-theism is somewhat safe from you. Because, as a theist, you have done more to lower my opinion of theism than anyone else on this board -- in all my years here. That's no exaggeration. You have really done that.

Thank you, Sunstone. If I wanted any assurance that I rattled your cage, that that was it.

 

[McBell]

Thank you, Sunstone. If I wanted any assurance that I rattled your cage, that that was it.

It is all about YOUR perception after all

 

[Sunstone]

Thank you, Sunstone. If I wanted any assurance that I rattled your cage, that that was it.

You have certainly challenged me. Before you came along, I had no problem respecting theists. Nowadays, after reading your posts, I can find myself fighting to not hold theism in contempt. I'm not making this up, Stone. These are experiences I've had caused by you.

It's one reason I only read you infrequently nowadays.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

You have certainly challenged me. Before you came along, I had no problem respecting theists. Nowadays, after reading your posts, I can find myself fighting to not hold theism in contempt. I'm not making this up, Stone. These are experiences I've had caused by you.

It's one reason I only read you infrequently nowadays.

My pleasure, friend! But build high and strong the walls of contempt lest they fall.

 

[Sunstone]

My pleasure, friend! But build high and strong the walls of contempt lest they fall.

You still don't get it, do you? You think I want to have contempt for theism. I don't. And I resent the fact you set such an example of a theist that contempt is all but forced upon me.

You win! I'm putting you on ignore.

 

[Willamena]

You still don't get it, do you? You think I want to have contempt for theism. I don't. And I resent the fact you set such an example of a theist that contempt is all but forced upon me.

You win! I'm putting you on ignore.

He twists your arm, to feel contempt for theists?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

He twists your arm, to feel contempt for theists?

It is perhaps symptomatic that he doesn't have a similar effect on more theists.

 

[Sunstone]

He twists your arm, to feel contempt for theists?

I have to remind myself theism did not create him.

 

[Magic Man]

Thank you, Sunstone. If I wanted any assurance that I rattled your cage, that that was it.

And now we see the real problem. Apparently, to you, it's about "rattling people's cages" instead of intelligent discussion. Maybe if you changed the goal of your posts to promoting conversation, rather than just annoying people, they would be more productive.

 

[Sunstone]

And now we see the real problem. Apparently, to you, it's about "rattling people's cages" instead of intelligent discussion. Maybe if you changed the goal of your posts to promote conversation, rather than just annoy people, they would be more productive.

I understand what you're saying, Matt. But he admitted there that he's a troll. Do you think a troll is going to change?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Thank you, Sunstone. If I wanted any assurance that I rattled your cage, that that was it.

I just want to be sure that I understand what you are saying.

Is it your intent to never agree with anything that you don't already believe?

It looks like you are taking the position that "I was wrong when I was an atheist, but now that I am a Urantian, I am right". You seem to be furthering that position statement by saying "All that do not agree with me are ignorant, lazy, and/or intellectually bankrupt".

Would that be a fair summation of your position?