Religious folks views of Atheists

[Moonbeam]

We can only say there is 'misfit' between a current and optimal state of belief if we have a strong belief regarding what that optimal state is. It doesn't mean one 'trusts in', the ontological sense, of what it is to believe: But it does affirm the universality of an internalized sense of what it would be to have an optimal state.

I had intended and completely forgot to ask you for an explanation an idiot could understand. No big words and no abstract thinking. Why was what I said unfair. To me unfair means I said something morally wrong, that I took an unfair advantage say. I thought what I did was offer the answer as to why sandorski wants proof, the fact that he already knows and doesn't recognize that he does. He has just as much faith that a one true God could never be any of the gods believers claim him to be. He calls that logic and reason. I simply suggest the reason that he trusts in those things. They don't exist in a vacuum, but adhere as properties of the universe. Here is one place where the seeker of knowledge cones to rest and it wide-eyed loving wonder.

 

[Charmonium]

Jesus MoonBeam... It's really not fair to do that to someone.

I think I understand what he means but wouldn't describe it quite that way. As I've said before in threads like this, atheism is as much a belief as any religion. The only difference is that it's the belief in a negative rather than positive proposition.

I think MB's point is that if you didn't have the capacity to imagine the positive proposition you would wouldn't be able to imagine the negation of it.

 

[sandorski]

I had intended and completely forgot to ask you for an explanation an idiot could understand. No big words and no abstract thinking. Why was what I said unfair. To me unfair means I said something morally wrong, that I took an unfair advantage say. I thought what I did was offer the answer as to why sandorski wants proof, the fact that he already knows and doesn't recognize that he does. He has just as much faith that a one true God could never be any of the gods believers claim him to be. He calls that logic and reason. I simply suggest the reason that he trusts in those things. They don't exist in a vacuum, but adhere as properties of the universe. Here is one place where the seeker of knowledge cones to rest and it wide-eyed loving wonder.

Do you need Faith in Leprechauns to discuss the merits of the existence of Leprechauns?

 

[Moonbeam]

I think I understand what he means but wouldn't describe it quite that way. As I've said before in threads like this, atheism is as much a belief as any religion. The only difference is that it's the belief in a negative rather than positive proposition.

I think MB's point is that if you didn't have the capacity to imagine the positive proposition you would wouldn't be able to imagine the negation of it.

That's pretty much it. It is exactly the same with the Irish Little Folk. Before you can conclude they are not likely to exist you have to have absorbed the ridiculous descriptions of what they are. That some unknown phenomenon may lie at the root of that myth, however, can't be ruled out by such data. We were all little folk once.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That's pretty much it. It is exactly the same with the Irish Little Folk. Before you can conclude they are not likely to exist you have to have absorbed the ridiculous descriptions of what they are. That some unknown phenomenon may lie at the root of that myth, however, can't be ruled out by such data. We were all little folk once.

Well said. But I don't think an atheist is capable of understanding this. They know that the God they imagine (if there were one) and don't believe in (paradox) doesn't exist, which is in fact true...but by their very nature, they are unable get beyond this and consider the very root of their false premise of the ridiculous (which they know to be false)...other possibilities beyond the ridiculous are inconceivable to them.

 

[soulcougher73]

Well said. But I don't think an atheist is capable of understanding this. They know that the God they imagine (if there were one) and don't believe in (paradox) doesn't exist, which is in fact true...but by their very nature, they are unable get beyond this and consider the very root of their false premise of the ridiculous (which they know to be false)...other possibilities beyond the ridiculous are inconceivable to them.

So you already know its ridiculous but you want us to go beyond that into say absurd territory to find the answer? And that makes sense?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well said. But I don't think an atheist is capable of understanding this. They know that the God they imagine (if there were one) and don't believe in (paradox) doesn't exist, which is in fact true...but by their very nature, they are unable get beyond this and consider the very root of their false premise of the ridiculous (which they know to be false)...other possibilities beyond the ridiculous are inconceivable to them.

I will readily admit that there are innumerable logically consistent god-concepts which are not falsified by any empirical evidence.

It is a fact that as an atheist I've contended with almost as many god-concepts as the number of believers I've encountered. What I can say is that their ideas about gods are either plainly inconsistent, lacking empirical basis in reality, or outright contradicted by reality in every single case.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well said. But I don't think an atheist is capable of understanding this. They know that the God they imagine (if there were one) and don't believe in (paradox) doesn't exist, which is in fact true...but by their very nature, they are unable get beyond this and consider the very root of their false premise of the ridiculous (which they know to be false)...other possibilities beyond the ridiculous are inconceivable to them.

The only way I can see to be of any use in this world is to leave hints as best I can, like the ones that saved me, if not to sandorski than to somebody else.

He doesn't seem to have much fire in his belly, no need no grace as it were, no psychic energy to power the leap in understanding that ends all doubt. But it is not within my capacity to determine who is hopelessly lost. So I put a bit of boot to his sleepy ass. I thought exactly as he does before I experience a state of consciousness that changed everything. The difference was that I was burning alive with misery. It's not my fault that you have to die to be reborn, nor my fault that to know you have to unknown everything you believe. Not my fault that down is actually up.

The thing that was critical in the leap from one state of mind to another, from misery to peace, was exposure to Zen, folk full of joy and philosophical emptiness. This WTF made ne so angry it killed my certainty that life had to have meaning. Then and only then could my brain rearrange itself the moment I experienced being. Only then could I experience the realization I had always been in the presence of perfection and that God is as real as that realization.

What I am saying, then, is that I know that being an atheist is no more a barrier to truth than religion is. I used to be one and then the other. Truth is open to anyone because it is our being. sandorski knows what is wrong with religion, all the imperfections of dogma and tradition. What he doesn't see is why he knows that for god to be God requires the realization of the perfection that is his being.

Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou. There is only love. Pure awareness is pure joy. And blah blah blah......

No pearls before swine is fine so long as you see there are no swine.

 

[Moonbeam]

I will readily admit that there are innumerable logically consistent god-concepts which are not falsified by any empirical evidence.

It is a fact that as an atheist I've contended with almost as many god-concepts as the number of believers I've encountered. What I can say is that their ideas about gods are either plainly inconsistent, lacking empirical basis in reality, or outright contradicted by reality in every single case.

Religions are techniques to awaken, either via the body, the emotional center, the thinking center, or a combination of them. To awaken or to be awake is a conscious state of experience. You acquire the knowledge of states my experience. You don't run scientific tests. He who tastes knows. Even in ordinary science the results depend on the state of the observer.

 

[disappoint]

All I said was that when one experiences the fact that everything is perfect one enters a God conscious state. I didn't say that you knew that. I am sure you see the world as very imperfect. You are not a knower.

So....imagination then, not reality. Got it.

 

[sandorski]

Religions are techniques to awaken, either via the body, the emotional center, the thinking center, or a combination of them. To awaken or to be awake is a conscious state of experience. You acquire the knowledge of states my experience. You don't run scientific tests. He who tastes knows. Even in ordinary science the results depend on the state of the observer.

Drugs work better.

 

[Moonbeam]

So....imagination then, not reality. Got it.

Once there was a man who was robbed on the road by a thief. Later the thief dropped the money on the road where the owner walked right by unseeing, it so overdone was he by his loss.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Religions are techniques to awaken, either via the body, the emotional center, the thinking center, or a combination of them.

No. Religions are thought-structures, and as such they impose unnecessary limitations on the self.

 

[Charmonium]

So you already know its ridiculous but you want us to go beyond that into say absurd territory to find the answer? And that makes sense?

I think MB already addressed this by reference to Zen but I don't think most people will understand the reference.

Mahayana Buddhism, practiced in most east asian countries, stipulates that in order to understand being you have to transcend the concepts and constructs that create your reality. There's no way to do this except to experience it. The best we can do with language is force you to contemplate things that are absurd or internally contradictory such as the famous 'one hand clapping' koan.

You can refer to this "place" beyond concept, logic, reason, etc as being absurd territory and in some sense you'd be right. But the point is that in order to know what it really means to exist, you need to transcend your own existence.

 

[Moonbeam]

Drugs work better.

Drugs used alone and by people with low self esteem and self destructive issues can lead to more of the same. There are religious traditions that use them to open the door to another way of seeing. They can give people the experience and the knowledge there are altered and theretofore unknown states of consciousness. That might not be such a great idea for somebody like disappointed who is already sure he knows what reality is.

The real danger, in my opinion, is when childhood traumatic events that destroyed our original state of perfection come up garbled and clouded by hallucinations. This can cause one to run for the nearest open window. One is safe if one goes straight into memory of the actual original situation, but it's important to know ahead of time that all that is happening already happened long ago. Drugs, in short, are dangerous, and especially so for the psychologically ignorant which is almost everybody.

 

[Moonbeam]

No. Religions are thought-structures, and as such they impose unnecessary limitations on the self.

Yes, but not originally. Originally they were tools operated by knowers designed to break whatever the major unconscious assumption was blocking realization in the knowers cultural context, his or her time and place. When the knowledge of the knower dies and there is no school of transmission, knower to knowing disciple the tool reverts to a mechanical dead thing. What yor refer to are husks or shells. Many still have a whiff of the ineffable about them.

We all have a dominant concealed prejudice tha keeps us from seeing.

A saying: Too many camel bones and one forgets what a live camel looks like.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think MB already addressed this by reference to Zen but I don't think most people will understand the reference.

Mahayana Buddhism, practiced in most east asian countries, stipulates that in order to understand being you have to transcend the concepts and constructs that create your reality. There's no way to do this except to experience it. The best we can do with language is force you to contemplate things that are absurd or internally contradictory such as the famous 'one hand clapping' koan.

You can refer to this "place" beyond concept, logic, reason, etc as being absurd territory and in some sense you'd be right. But the point is that in order to know what it really means to exist, you need to transcend your own existence.

Nice. The problem as I see it lies in language and the emotional impact we can have on children with words, put downs specifically. We were born perfect because we could not compare ourselves to anything. We did not use words or name things, could not think using language to represent ideas. We were born with a huge plasticity of potential and massive being joy, only to be crammed into some particular ego identity. We were controlled and forced to conform to local standards by being made to experience the terror of the denial of love if we wondered too far from the farm.

We learned about things that have no reality at all, like good and evil. If we strayed from the safety of proper behavior we were told we are evil and worthy of our own self contempt. We were cast from the garden of Eden where no evil existed, our perfect original stat, a state that will reappear when the delusions of self hate disappear. Thought is the carrier of these delusions, the belief in ideas, the notion, say, that evil actually exists.

Thought is time. Thought is memory of the past, the absorption of concepts and ideas to which painful experiences cling. Though creates time. Time disappears when thought ends. The purpose of the Zen koan is to end time. When time ends one enters the immortality of being. There is the delusions of time that create the ego, and the state of infinite being.

So I would say, then, that to know what it means to exist you have to cease to exist completely. What we mean by existence is a delusion of the ego.

In order to be you have only to end time and enter the now. And have we really ever been anywhere else?

As the Zen master says, 'Everybody is enlightened. It would be nice to know it'.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No. Religions are thought-structures, and as such they impose unnecessary limitations on the self.

Yes is the correct answer. However your premise is correct and divergent conclusion is correct....how is that possible?

 

[MongGrel]

I was going to actually bring up the point there are several religions that are compatible with being an atheist, but apparently that has been mentioned now.

I figured it would get there eventually.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No pearls before swine is fine so long as you see there are no swine.

Yet the effort seems to be so futile. They don't get it...and sadly, they don't seem to have the slightest desire to get it. Strong determination to seek truth at all costs is incredibly difficult for most. Religions are faulty constructs merely pointing at what is real. That's how they get away with it. God's "mercy" reinforces these faulty constructs of mere mortals until perhaps a few wise up and find out just how little they actually know. But this is all just pearls before swine and nearly impossible for most to understand. I admire your tenacity.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Do you need Faith in Leprechauns to discuss the merits of the existence of Leprechauns?

If your denial of leprechauns was "your definition of a Leprechaun doesn't meet the definition of any REAL leprechaun" Then yea, it'd be because you believed in Leprechauns.

Your disbelief in God is qualitatively different from your disbelieve in leprechauns. If tomorrow we found good empirical evidence of 1ft tall humanoid gold-hording, rain-bow fetishizing, culture in the emerald isle, you'd say "fuck, leprechauns!"

But when you are confronted with empirical evidence of the impact that God has in people's lives you say "well that definition of God doesn't comport with a REAL God".

 

[Charmonium]

In order to be you have only to end time and enter the now. And have we really ever been anywhere else?

This easier for some than others. For example, I have brain damage from an illness I had as a child. As a result, I see (or don't see) things differently than most 'normal' people.

In my world, there is only the eternal now. I can remember things from the past and imagine things in the future, but only now is real. This might be the result of aphantasia in which you are unable to create images in your mind. So since I can't actually "see" the past or the future, they lack any sense of being real. I know that they are real but on the level of subjective experience, they aren't

But even with such an advantage, I still can't quiet my mind to the point where I can see beyond my immediate reality.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

This easier for some than others. For example, I have brain damage from an illness I had as a child. As a result, I see (or don't see) things differently than most 'normal' people.

In my world, there is only the eternal now. I can remember things from the past and imagine things in the future, but only now is real. This might be the result of aphantasia in which you are unable to create images in your mind. So since I can't actually "see" the past or the future, they lack any sense of being real. I know that they are real but on the level of subjective experience, they aren't

But even with such an advantage, I still can't quiet my mind to the point where I can see beyond my immediate reality.

Immediate reality is a lie you tell yourself to justify what you think you're doing.

 

[MongGrel]

Immediate reality is a lie you tell yourself to justify what you think you're doing.

So what, you exist in the future on some spiritual plane ?

:hmm:

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So what, you exist in the future on some spiritual plane ?

Independent personhood is an idea created to perpetuate ideological power structures: so that an 'individual' could be blamed for errors in how institutions enacted society.

The data stream into the brain-vat comes from somewhere with consistent rules, but after that how we enact such streams into "Immediate reality" is a function of our socialization. Including the identification of 'self' as the supreme unit of interest.