Re: How Does an Atheist Come to Believe in God?
Posted: Wed May 30, 2018 10:26 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
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.
-1- wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 11:41 pm 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.
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.-1- wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 11:41 pm 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.
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.Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 30, 2018 9:55 pmThat'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.
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!Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 2:47 amTrue. 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.
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 itLacewing wrote: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, 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.Lacewing wrote: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.
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.Lacewing wrote: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 think at that point they start moving towards pantheism, panentheism or even Spinozan pantheism.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?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 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 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 wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 2:44 pmI 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?
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?Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 4:20 pmIf you assert that you are nothing and also God, it means that both you and a source for creation are both illusory.Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 2:44 pmI 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?
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?
You wrote:Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 4:57 pmWhy 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?Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 4:20 pmIf you assert that you are nothing and also God, it means that both you and a source for creation are both illusory.Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 2:44 pm
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?
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.
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 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.
"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.Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu May 31, 2018 7:02 pm You wrote:
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 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.