theist in a foxhole

[henry quirk]

In my experience, atheists can be just as rabid, just as blind, just as overbearing, as any theist. And: in my experience, theists can be just measured, just as reasonable, just as aware, as any atheist.

Declaring either perspective, any perspective, as a group position (rather than taking individuals 'as' individuals) is just friggin' dumb.

[Lacewing]

In my experience, atheists can be just as rabid, just as blind, just as overbearing, as any theist. And: in my experience, theists can be just measured, just as reasonable, just as aware, as any atheist.

Declaring either perspective, any perspective, as a group position (rather than taking individuals 'as' individuals) is just friggin' dumb.

I agree, Henry... categories and labels do not define a person. And ANY beliefs... whether religious, political, national, positional, gender-related, race-related... can become a form of self-hypnosis that shuts out all else to the contrary, in order to see oneself as on the "right" side of whatever it is. It's all about ego... not intelligence or honor.

[The Inglorious One]

In my experience, atheists can be just as rabid, just as blind, just as overbearing, as any theist. And: in my experience, theists can be just measured, just as reasonable, just as aware, as any atheist.

Declaring either perspective, any perspective, as a group position (rather than taking individuals 'as' individuals) is just friggin' dumb.

I agree, but Lacewing's pseudo-psychology is madness itself. From a theistic point of view we are spiritual equals in potential, but in actuality we are "in-betweeners." It is therefore morally reprehensible and dangerous to apply Lacewing's egalitarian ideals to the actual state of affairs.

[Obvious Leo]

It is therefore morally reprehensible and dangerous to apply Lacewing's egalitarian ideals to the actual state of affairs.

Why? If there were a god and the gift of immortality was his to grant do you reckon that such a gift would be granted on the basis of our beliefs in this world or on the basis of our actions in this world?

[bobevenson]

Theist, agnostic, atheist. As Bob the Baptist, I can tell you that the first and third are fools, and absolute fools at that.

[Arising_uk]

So let me get this right bobby, you are either an absolute fool or an agnostic?

[henry quirk]

So: if I see no evidence of a super- or supra-natural foundation to the world, and no evidence of super- or supra-natural influence in the world, and I call myself atheist because of this, I'm a fool?

Okeedoke...I can live with that.

[bobevenson]

So: if I see no evidence of a super- or supra-natural foundation to the world, and no evidence of super- or supra-natural influence in the world, and I call myself atheist because of this, I'm a fool?

Okeedoke...I can live with that.

Unless you're omniscient, agnostic would be the intelligent classification.

[henry quirk]

If every one were wholly honest, then every one would cop to being 'agnostic' about almost everything.

The best any one can do is take the information available, assess it as best as one can, and then 'conclude'.

If one is sensible, one recognizes that no information is complete, no assessment is flawless, no conclusion is perfect or absolute.

You gotta leave room for new or more accurate information, gotta be willing to reassess, gotta be willing to reach a new conclusion.

But: what human being can live in a state of perpetual and active doubt and retain his or her sanity?

Not me, anyway.

So: while keeping an eye out, an ear open, for new info, I get on with living and make do with what I got. In the context of this thread this means getting on in what seems to be a wholly natural world, one with no architect, creator, and sustainer, which -- by common definition -- makes me some kind of atheist (or apatheist or agnostheist or unbeliever or...*shrug*).

As I've said before somewhere in-forum, it's easy to get caught up in the placeholders, ignoring the thing (or person) the placeholders stand for.

[Lacewing]

I think a lot of confusion and misunderstanding arises when people try to superimpose their template onto people in discussions. For example, people who believe in absolute templates of one type or another... (whether it be some kind of religious belief, or the way the world works, or what's possible or right)... are likely to impose such absolute templates onto other people when they hear differing perspectives, because they don't know how to NOT BE ABSOLUTE. It's like a foreign language to them. So then they respond about (and to) others in extreme, inaccurate, and very distorted ways -- twisting and misrepresenting (with their own template) what the person thinks or says. And that's why it seems pointless to engage with them.

It makes me think of this: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein

If your thinking is so patterned and set as to exclude and resist all that is different, you're not going to see or understand what ELSE there is beyond your own thinking. And you'll keep applying the same logic and rules and limitations that fit what you think you know. This doesn't mean you shouldn't have standards and strategies that work for you, etc... it JUST MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. And THAT ALONE is worth considering. THAT ALONE can open some doors of perception and possibility.

There is ALWAYS SO MUCH MORE for any of us to discover, isn't there?? So many ways to look at everything! So many vantage points. What's of value for some, might be very limiting to others! And there are ALWAYS BALANCES to consider. Things are not always the same for everyone in every situation. And circumstances can change what's appropriate or valuable. It's in motion and there are many possibilities.

It is challenging to describe the perspective of what it's like to move through each moment or each day, listening and watching for subtle balances and openings and closings... like all other natural creatures do. It does not mean, when a human does this, that there are no values or thoughts about what is right and good. It means that the human is not trying to broadly and habitually impose its ideas and control on other beings and currents that are flowing. The human is, instead, trying to be part of the naturally free-flowing system... and be MORE AWARE of the larger system where all kinds of amazing things fall into place, when humans keep their egos and limited thinking OUT OF THE WAY.

Magic moments and miracles happen all the time... because, I think, THAT is the natural state when we're not clogging it up. The whole system is very organic... and being/feeling oneself as part of it is very vibrant and alive! I do not need to have a bunch of rules and absolutes when I am tuning into how the system works naturally without any specific rules or absolutes. It is nature... it flows... and energy seems to attract like-energy... and, in a way, energy seems to know where to go... and there seems to be some perfection in the alignment and connections and motion... without all the human stories and ideas limiting it.

Again, please don't apply your absolute template onto this explanation/perspective. Human stories and ideas are FINE for all kinds of human experience. They may be very constructive during one phase of a person's life... and then become destructive in another phase. Nothing stands still. Nothing stays the same. Nothing is absolute. It's all very dynamic... and we're making up a great deal of it. This is how it has always seemed to me. This is my perspective. So, naturally, instead of looking for definitive answers and viewpoints and positions, I continue to be interested in seeing what more there is. Again... NOT to an extreme. It's a natural flow and evolution.

Please just consider that if you are locked into a particular viewpoint, you are very likely applying that template onto all else... and so you won't be able to see beyond/outside where you are. As a result, you may be rude to other people who suggest anything different than what you choose to consider and see. You may say that other people are not presenting a good enough argument to convince you otherwise... when they're not even trying to convince you of anything... and they don't even want to talk on your frequency/channel. They just want to point out that there are other valid frequencies/perspectives than any single one. Funny how such an idea is so outrageous to some people.