How Does an Atheist Come to Believe in God?

[Lacewing]

Who else has explained why they are living in Plato's Cave, what it means, and the way out? I want to dialogue with them.

You appear unable to see viewpoints and explanations other than your own very limited concepts and descriptions.

[Eodnhoj7]

Because to continual negate a subject you have to continually prove it.

[-1-]

Who else has explained why they are living in Plato's Cave, what it means, and the way out? I want to dialogue with them.

Bah! You are incapable of dialogue, Nick_A. You speak a monologue while others make remarks on your text. You completely lock out the outside world under the pretense of dialogue.

You enjoy the attention, I am sure, but you ain't going to get it from too many of us here, we learned your tricks, Nick_A. Your interest and opinion ain't worth a wooden Nick_A to us.

[-1-]

Re: How Does an Atheist Come to Believe in God?
Post by -1- » Wed May 30, 2018 6:35 pm

I don't know. I have never seen that transformation. I have seen it happen in the opposite direction, many times: a religious person, even ministers and preachers, becoming atheists. But I have never seen an atheist become a religious person.

I don't know why that is. Maybe religion is too wrought with self-contradictions, with prefab dogma that is unappealing and unbelievable? Or maybe that the god-image is not needed in the world view of an atheist, so why bother? The god-gaps have got filled one by one.

So why would an atheist become religious? There is no reason for it, is there.

[Eodnhoj7]

Re: How Does an Atheist Come to Believe in God?
Post by -1- » Wed May 30, 2018 6:35 pm

I don't know. I have never seen that transformation. I have seen it happen in the opposite direction, many times: a religious person, even ministers and preachers, becoming atheists. But I have never seen an atheist become a religious person.

I don't know why that is. Maybe religion is too wrought with self-contradictions, with prefab dogma that is unappealing and unbelievable? Or maybe that the god-image is not needed in the world view of an atheist, so why bother? The god-gaps have got filled one by one.

And philosophy or science is not also "wrought with self-contradictions"? If contradiction is the standard of measurement of truth, then no truth exists, however this in itself would be a truth hence a contradiction.

So why would an atheist become religious? There is no reason for it, is there.

There are a variety of reasons, and I have seen and heard of quite a few. It appears that the majority of atheists, with emphasis on majority, equate the problem of God fundamentally to a problem of justice or balance (hence evil). The problem with this logic is that it implies one, or anybody sees a complete picture of existence outside the confines of logic with the concepts of justice and balance being things in themselves that exist as unproven axioms.

So either the atheist is contradicted by the fact that certain concepts exist for what they are as evident or they are arguing a negation of something which they cannot prove. On one hand the atheist has to accept the concepts to argue against them on the other if they are there is no proof the statement is illogical as they cannot negate that which has no proof. Even the understanding of proof requires a certain element of definition, where "proof" itself becomes a typeless definition that fundamentally leaves an inherently subjective quality (which means the atheist is arguing against his/her own beliefs) or an inherently objective quality that extends to the definition of God having objective qualities.

Atheism is a philosophy of strict negation which in itself is irrational on its own terms.

[Averroes]

Re: How Does an Atheist Come to Believe in God?
Post by -1- » Wed May 30, 2018 6:35 pm

I don't know. I have never seen that transformation. I have seen it happen in the opposite direction, many times: a religious person, even ministers and preachers, becoming atheists. But I have never seen an atheist become a religious person.

I know a bit about the subject and can share some knowledge on that with you. For example, I can give you a lot of examples of atheists embracing Islam. I have links to YouTube videos where the former atheists express themselves on the subject.

Former atheist scientist, Prof Milan embraced Islam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QfhgKkLPc0

Former atheist Ruben from Australia embraced Islam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xhZ00xnHIA
Ruben is very funny in that video.

[Greta]

mtmynd1
You are the only person I’ve read on this forum who is open to the idea that “We are still sleep walking, in a dream-state filled with illusions and ideas that trick us...”

That's because you're not paying attention, Nick, and you ignore things that challenge and squash your beloved isolated platform that you thrive on and identify yourself with.

A lot of people share the above perspective, they just don't frame it in the intoxicated way that you do... and that's because you are sleep-walking in your own dream-state filled with illusions and ideas that trick you... and a lot of people aren't interested in that.

LW, remember, Nick does not understand what his quotes mean. If you do not include the words "Plato", "cave" or "sleep" he won't understand when the concept is described. Relative wakefulness is actually something I've been interested in for a while now.

I was reading Ouspensky and Gurdjeiff (amongst many other things) back in the 80s, and those Russian mystics were ALWAYS banging on about the lack of intensity in our waking state, referred to as being "asleep". It was their main riff. It's ironic that one as blinkered and mechanistic as Nick would claim special awareness. Then again, that's most likely typical.

Many of us are well aware that every waking moment presents an opportunity for great depth, no matter how ostensibly trivial. It's simply a matter of focus because all aspects of our reality are wondrous if we take the time and make the effort to consider what they actually are in themselves. More usually, we reduce reality to pragmatically constructed abstractions, generally forced on us by the pressures of living.

This is the great "awakening" for those who are dying or having peak experiences - the actual reality - the ontology, the things in themselves. In those states our abstractions cease to be practical and the visceral takes primacy. It can be shocking if one spends enough time busy with the abstractions - abstractions that bring success, fame and relationships - but don't prepare us for the brutal and messy reality of suffering and death.

Of course, we have little awakenings like that for all our lives, when primal aspects of existence impinge on our modern dream.

Trouble is, the kind of focus that cuts through the abstractions costs energy unless one is in a flow state. However, to maintain that level of focus is impractical for many trying to build a sustainable life for themselves and kin. Years of self-work in a cave (a real one, not necessarily Plato's) might allow one to easily sustain that level of focus - to consistently appreciate actual reality - in an almost perennial flow state without effort. However, most people have neither the opportunity nor inclination.

Ultimately it comes down to how one wants to consume their suffering. To sit in a damn cave doing horridly dull exercises for decades, spending time with other impossibly dull people, does not tend to attract most of us . However, to the serious ascetic, the idea of suffering in the world with no hope of "flowing Samadhi" is more problematic again.

Middle age has taught me that if one does not inflict suffering on oneself then life will do it for us. For example, those who avoid the pain of exercise invite back pain and digestive discomfort. So (when life gives us a chance to choose) we all choose our poisons, our pains, consciously or unconsciously.

Damn, I've digressed from atheists and gods ... whatever, it's clear that berating, shaming and misrepresenting does not turn heathens into believers. There is only one way to convert, and that is by example - by being so admirable, decent, understanding and grounded that some may think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9-PjBTn7Ec

[Lacewing]

LW, remember, Nick does not understand what his quotes mean. If you do not include the words "Plato", "cave" or "sleep" he won't understand when the concept is described.

True. But I do have so much fun trying to shake him awake from his groggy cave-exiled sleep as he babbles incoherently about Plato and Simone and the Great Beast. What a creative dreamer he is. He presents a perfect example of sleep-walking through illusions.

Lots of good points in your post, Greta.

For years I tried to model all kinds of "admirable" qualities... now I try to model "authenticity". It's a lot more fun... and actually more effective and transformative, I think. It's like saying, "C'mon, let's get real"... rather than simply "Let's be nice"... although I do try to strike an appropriate balance, based on the circumstances and context.

There is the capability for brilliance in all of us... as well as the capability for denseness. Religion is no assurance of brilliance, of course... because people are so creative, and their egos are so crafty and needy, that they can distort and use anything blindly. And being asleep is just a state. It's not evil. As you pointed out, we can all have times of being awakened from our usual states. Hopefully we utilize those experiences to evolve and expand a little further.

It is so disrespectful and ignorant for theists to claim that they somehow have an inside connection or special key to wisdom. As if their God is an exclusive club. If anything, they have a greater obstacle to overcome to experience what is naturally within all of us and all of creation.

I wonder if... the moment that a theist acknowledges the sacred and glory in ALL, is the moment that they stop being a theist? Because then there is no OTHER and no separation. And for those who can fully immerse themselves in that, I think it is an ecstatically divine experience... without the disruptions of human ideas.

[Greta]

LW, remember, Nick does not understand what his quotes mean. If you do not include the words "Plato", "cave" or "sleep" he won't understand when the concept is described.

True. But I do have so much fun trying to shake him awake from his groggy cave-exiled sleep as he babbles incoherently about Plato and Simone and the Great Beast. What a creative dreamer he is. He presents a perfect example of sleep-walking through illusions.

LOL @ your turn of phrase. I hope you are writing for the public somewhere!

Still, to be fair, Nick is very, very screwed up. Most theists would not want to be lumped in with Nick and his manias.

For years I tried to model all kinds of "admirable" qualities... now I try to model "authenticity". It's a lot more fun... and actually more effective and transformative, I think. It's like saying, "C'mon, let's get real"... rather than simply "Let's be nice"... although I do try to strike an appropriate balance, based on the circumstances and context.

Yes, it gets that way. It's hard to embody the qualities one admires if they are not playing to your strengths. I've had much difficulty "trying to be nice" too. In the end I've had to face the fact that I can be a bitch and just work with it

While I'm with you re: authenticity - better to be a "good you" than a "bad someone else", but it's also hard to achieve. You have to know who you are first. That requires accepting hard truths about oneself.

Religion [...] people are so creative, and their egos are so crafty and needy, that they can distort and use anything blindly. And being asleep is just a state. It's not evil. As you pointed out, we can all have times of being awakened from our usual states. Hopefully we utilize those experiences to evolve and expand a little further.

Yes, allowing one's ego to get involved is a common trap. The moment we become proud of our attainments we are on the way down. It's not feeling pride that brought those attainments about.

It is so disrespectful and ignorant for theists to claim that they somehow have an inside connection or special key to wisdom. As if their God is an exclusive club. If anything, they have a greater obstacle to overcome to experience what is naturally within all of us and all of creation.

If they were interested in "experiencing what is naturally in us and all of creation" (or philosophy, for that matter) they would display far more interest in, and knowledge of, science.

Rather, they typify the abstractions referred to above, focused on human games and rules of engagement to the point that the underpinning nature is rendered trivial and unreal to them.

It's easy to pick theists with depth - they are the ones who love science as a means of better understanding evolved creation. They are not the science-haters, who are just political theocrats, hungry for power.

Another way of telling the deep ones is checking their attitude towards other species. If the attitude smacks of the contempt of a "superior being, then you know you don't have a sincerely devout person, just a bullying hominid with some airs and graces.

I wonder if... the moment that a theist acknowledges the sacred and glory in ALL, is the moment that they stop being a theist? Because then there is no OTHER and no separation. And for those who can fully immerse themselves in that, I think it is an ecstatically divine experience... without the disruptions of human ideas.

I think at that point they start moving towards pantheism, panentheism or even Spinozan pantheism.

Such a peak experience shifted me from apatheism to agnosticism, although I'm not sure what I'm agnostic about ... I'm agnostic that something more interesting than we realise is happening . Whatever it is, it's surely not the hasty and dodgy adaptation of the ancient Jewish war deity, Jehovah, that some theists here have adopted.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing wrote:

I wonder if... the moment that a theist acknowledges the sacred and glory in ALL, is the moment that they stop being a theist? Because then there is no OTHER and no separation. And for those who can fully immerse themselves in that, I think it is an ecstatically divine experience... without the disruptions of human ideas.

Two opposing beliefs: "I Am God" and "I Am Nothing" How can a person learn which is the truth?

[Lacewing]

Two opposing beliefs: "I Am God" and "I Am Nothing" How can a person learn which is the truth?

I don't see those beliefs as opposing... perhaps because I don't define "God" as otherness or anything distinctive at all. So they are both true.

Can you acknowledge understanding of what I am saying? And follow/explore this idea without going off on your usual tangent?

[Nick_A]

Two opposing beliefs: "I Am God" and "I Am Nothing" How can a person learn which is the truth?

I don't see those beliefs as opposing... perhaps because I don't define "God" as otherness or anything distinctive at all. So they are both true.

Can you acknowledge understanding of what I am saying? And follow/explore this idea without going off on your usual tangent?

If you assert that you are nothing and also God, it means that both you and a source for creation are both illusory. This raises both the question of the source of something as opposed to nothing and the eternal question residing in the depth of the heart of Man of objective human meaning and purpose. If we are simultaneously God and nothing since they are the same, what actually is happening and why is it happening?

[Lacewing]

Two opposing beliefs: "I Am God" and "I Am Nothing" How can a person learn which is the truth?

I don't see those beliefs as opposing... perhaps because I don't define "God" as otherness or anything distinctive at all. So they are both true.

Can you acknowledge understanding of what I am saying? And follow/explore this idea without going off on your usual tangent?

If you assert that you are nothing and also God, it means that both you and a source for creation are both illusory.

Why are you interjecting your definition of God onto me? I did not say anything about God being the source for creation. Please read again what I wrote. If you can't understand it, fine. Your conclusions are distorted by your own additional interjections -- this is very telling, can you see?

If we are simultaneously God and nothing since they are the same

Again, you are interjecting notions which distort, rather than really hearing what I'm saying. I said that the two "beliefs" (as you put it) are NOT opposing, and they are both true. Why do you equate that as being the SAME?

Seriously, Nick... try to see this without adding on stuff that isn't there.

[Nick_A]

I don't see those beliefs as opposing... perhaps because I don't define "God" as otherness or anything distinctive at all. So they are both true.

Can you acknowledge understanding of what I am saying? And follow/explore this idea without going off on your usual tangent?

If you assert that you are nothing and also God, it means that both you and a source for creation are both illusory.

Why are you interjecting your definition of God onto me? I did not say anything about God being the source for creation. Please read again what I wrote. If you can't understand it, fine. Your conclusions are distorted by your own additional interjections -- this is very telling, can you see?

If we are simultaneously God and nothing since they are the same

Again, you are interjecting notions which distort, rather than really hearing what I'm saying. I said that the two "beliefs" (as you put it) are NOT opposing, and they are both true. Why do you equate that as being the SAME?

Seriously, Nick... try to see this without adding on stuff that isn't there.

You wrote:

I don't see those beliefs as opposing... perhaps because I don't define "God" as otherness or anything distinctive at all. So they are both true.

If they are both true and you accept the fact that you are nothing it means God is also nothing or without a defining reality. How else can they both be true? If they are both true, what is happening and why is it happening?

[Lacewing]

You wrote:

I don't see those beliefs as opposing... perhaps because I don't define "God" as otherness or anything distinctive at all. So they are both true.

If they are both true and you accept the fact that you are nothing it means God is also nothing or without a defining reality. How else can they both be true? If they are both true, what is happening and why is it happening?

"I am nothing" is true in the sense of recognizing and acknowledging that my identity, and any idea of me being separate, is completely manufactured/made-up.

"I am God" is true in the sense of seeing ALL as one ("me" included). No separate "source". ALL "God". Nobody else here that's not "God".

In other words: WHOLENESS... BEHIND the superficial ideas/agendas/separations/divisions that humans imagine/create/identify during their experience on this Earth stage.