Atheism

[promethean75]

"Why such a tricky and shadowy God who sets things up in such a strange manner?"

Oh a great question. It's becuz man, who is so tricky and shadowy himself, necessarily projects his own nature into the nature of the god he believes might exist.

You'll note that every reference to the god in the Bible - his actions, efforts and effects - are identical to the things a human father would be inclined to do; protect, punish, reward, teach a lesson, etc.

The entire story is a symbolic mediation of the kind of troubled and confusing relationship a child would have with a parent.

And what makes the situation even more tricky is the fact that the child (the christian) is constantly trying to make sense of what they perceive is inexplicable; why would god do that to me? What have i done wrong? I thought i had done what he wants. Am i being tested again? Am i being selfish to expect his good favor for doing what i thought he wanted of me? No, i have to have faith that god has a plan and purpose for all this inexplicable suffering, and trust in him.

Now becuz there is no such god, no sense can be made of it, and the child develops irrational anxieties that further complicate the matter. The christian, now terrified, finally succumbs to a pascalesque wager and totally breaks down. He suffers, he doesn't understand why, but has to trust in something that may not even exist with the hope that the promise made by this god will be fulfilled (if only he continues to believe). Now totally sapped of any enthusiasm or confidence in life, he misses/ignores any opportunity to participate in any realistic efforts to make life better for people (like political reform and/or revolution). Now he simply lives a passive existence waiting to die.

It's all so sad. I could almost cry if i weren't so sickened by their weakness. I can't help this; if u come cryin to me, u are now about to witness the strenth of street knowledge

[VVilliam]

Natural Theism.
1. Openness to Knowledge. Natural Theism is characterized through absence of dogmatic belief and acknowledgment of unknowns. Natural Theists do not assert definitive beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God but acknowledge the limitations of their current knowledge.
2. Position on the Primary Questions and Assessment of Available Data: Natural Theism centers around the primary question of whether we exist within a created thing and in relation to that, the question re the nature of the creator. Natural Theists affirm this proposition definitively, based on both recognizing the current available information and the ongoing need for more information. Natural Theists are willing to consider new information and adjust their stance accordingly.
3. Individual Approach: Natural Theism is recognized as an individualized approach to philosophical questions. While common themes exist among Theists, the position allows for personal exploration and interpretation.

This sounds somewhat like 'natural theology' but without the emphasis on reason.

Are these your own ideas, or a variation on natural theology or something else?

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology,[1] is a type of theology that seeks to provide arguments for theological topics (such as the existence of a deity) based on reason and the discoveries of science, the project of arguing for the existence of God on the basis of observed natural facts, and through natural phenomena viewed as divine, or complexities of nature seen as evidence of a divine plan (see predestination) or Will of God, which includes nature itself.[2]

This distinguishes it from revealed theology, which is based on scripture and/or religious experiences,[3] also from transcendental theology, which is based on a priori reasoning.[citation needed] It is thus a type of philosophy, with the aim of explaining the nature of the celestial motors, or gods, or of one supreme god, that are responsible for heavenly motion. Aristotle's tractate on metaphysics claims to demonstrate the necessary existence of an unmoved prime mover.

For monotheistic religions, this principally involves arguments about the attributes or non-attributes of a deity, and especially the deity's existence, using arguments that do not involve recourse to revelation.[4][5]

The ideals of natural theology can be traced back to the Old Testament and Greek philosophy.[6][7] Early sources evident of these ideals come from Jeremiah and the Wisdom of Solomon (c. 50 BC)[6][8] and Plato's dialogue Timaeus (c. 360 BC).[9]

Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 BCE) established a distinction between political theology (the social functions of religion), natural theology and mythical theology. His terminology became part of the Stoic tradition and then Christianity through Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_theology

Interesting. Thanks for the linkage.

[VVilliam]

Agnosticism fills the whole space between those two positions, because it's chief characteristic is undecidedness. But the measure of that undecidedness (from almost convinced to almost convinced against) is not fixed. It's not firm. It's very broad, and can vacillate. Even the individual agnostic would, rationally speaking, have to admit that he doesn't know from minute to minute whether he will continue to feel warranted in holding his current position. Maybe new data will appear. Maybe he will consider something new. Maybe he will have some experience he has not yet had. Maybe something will finally close his mind on one option or the other. Maybe not. He doesn't know, because he's undecided.

All he can know for sure is that he is at least a bit open both to Atheism turning out to be the case, or Theism. And he cannot decide on a firm position without becoming himself either a Theist or an Atheist. (Well, the one thing he could do is decide not to think anymore, and close his mind, and pretend that his indecision can never be shifted; but I'm guessing you don't think agnostics ought to be encouraged to do that.)

I believe that I understand Immanuel's position sufficiently. Either one *believes in God* and is a theist, or one doubts that God or gods exist or one states that one does not know, and is agnostic.

One is somewhat at a loss to know how Immanuel interprets those who, located in other cultures and traditions, do certainly *believe in God* but are not Christian. To clarify matters I will say that 1) he could not accept their god-belief as being either real or genuine, and 2) that belief in any other god or gods is, given the metaphysical predicates of Hebrew and Jewish belief-system, a form of Devil worship.

What I say here is fundamental to Christian Evangelical fundamentalism and cannot be ignored.

Be that as it may I can present something of an alternative to his either you are/or you are not paradigm, and I would say that what I describe is a confession of my own position:

Try as I may I cannot arrive at any sufficient definition of what God actually is. Neither can I understand (if such a God exists) what I am to do in my relation to that God. Why is there a God who is so *invisible* and so absent from the world when it is conceivable that, in a truly god-world, that everything would be made totally plain. Why such a tricky and shadowy God who sets things up in such a strange manner? The Christian presupposition (certainly the Calvinist one) is that *the believer* had been chosen long before he became decisive in belief. That some are destines to believe and to *be saved* and others to be sent to eternal torment. I know that Immanuel's belief is different. Yet, in fact, you have to be able to explain why some do not *get the message*, or get the message very differently, and do not, and cannot, go along with the strict Christian program.

So there really is another position altogether, and that position is for people who may have had all sorts of *spiritual experiences*, which have both instructed them and also puzzled them (I am thinking of Bahman here), but do not seem to prompt the individual to take up the strictly defined Christian path such as Christian Evangelicalism is.

There is actually a further dimension as well: those who recognize that there is no way, within our modern structure, to either explain or to demonstrate (prove) God, but who yet, as to a vestige, cling in some sense to the myriad former descriptions about what God is, what God does, what God wants, and a great deal more, and so have no other choice if they are to remain authentic but to hold to a non-decisive position.

It is different than the either you do/or you do not position that Immanuel outlines. It is as if one says: I have lost all sense of a genuine description of God that I can believe in. The entire platform of human life has shifted so dramatically that any *description* is not possible if I am to remain authentic and coherent. So I must forge a new sense of what *religiousness* and also *spirituality* are to be. But this view has not coalesced enough for me to have certainty or confidence.

There is another side to all of this as well. We must clearly see and recognize that in any decisions I would or can make as an individual, and certainly when it pertains to the mass, that religiousness is intimately tied up with politics. Need I point out how Evangelicals in America must take a position on Israel and "God's original children* there who are fighting God's fight? That is just one aspect of the intrusion of politics into religious belief and into cultural issues.

One thing that Immanuel has referenced in the past is that the Nazis rejected Christianity. I have done the research and I have no doubt that this is true. In a way similar to myself, through I was raised as I say *on the fringes of Reform Judaism in California*, I see it as a necessary step to reject both Judaism and Christianity at the most elemental and fundamental level. In a general sense, in an evolving way, Northern Europe received Christian missionaries from the Roman/Mediterranean world, but they significantly modified the belief-system. They made it (in many but not all ways) not an otherworldly religious system but a this-worldly religious and existential system. This has to do with fundamental ways that different people, or different races and climes, situate themselves within this Earth existence.

One sign of the beginning of a vast change was, naturally, Luther's rebellion against the Roman Church. And it is true what Roman Catholics say: this rebellion represented a radical and a fundamental shift in how religiosity and spirituality were conceived. It is something of a reduction but when you push it forward (Luther's rebellion) you do eventually arrive at a position of not being able to define what God is anymore -- unless you resort back to outrageous faith-based belief in complex phantasy-pictures.

I have to say that to best understand the argumentation and conflict that has taken place on this forum (certainly since I reappeared here and engaged with Immanuel for months on the Christianity thread), that we have to acknowledge what the *rejection of Christianity* really and truly is, and I mean at the metaphysical and the most fundamental level. I have my own way of describing it. Or to put it differently I see myself as being on the cusp of a newer solidification of what *religiousness* and *spirituality* should be.

It should not be an *otherworldly profession*. It should not be seeing *God* as an exterior element who has *invaded* the world and *taken slaves* (those who will bow their knees eventually). If you are going to define a Divine Figure (an Avatar of God) you cannot (should not) define a Master who comes to rule you. But rather a friend who is similar to you in essential orientation. Further, it is substantially erroneous and misleading to paint a picture of a God who comes from a radically different locality within the Cosmos and *imposes* his will on the Earth. That is one of the principle motivations in historical Christianity, is it not? The Christian confronts other peoples and enforces the view on them that what they are, and what they believe, is the stuff of deviltry. Christianity is enormously imperialistic. But the real root of that imperialistic attitude was developed in Hebraism. The Hebrew is really & truly God's chosen. And the Goyim are, essentially, the devilish material that Yahweh is molding to his historical purposes and ends.

It is not at all difficult for me to understand and respect the general European will to throw off these imposing, slave-making ideas.

Now, what is the relation of *all this* to the events and the situations of today? Political upset, deadly battles, talk of civil war, irreconcilable social, political and existential differences, wars popping up like mushrooms, the sense of things careening out of control, the deninciation of *elites* who control the fate of peoples and nations, globalist projects and on and on and on? In so many ways we are dealing in, and we are subsumed in, octaves of the same conflict and upset of the Interwar Period.

This is why, in my view, the potential for conversation (here) is so intriguing. That is, if one can get sufficiently dis-invested of one's own partisan position and get enough above the fray to talk about oneself, ones; orientation, one's situation, with a certain detachment.

This has to do with what I mentioned as "The Wall" which Atheists and Theists have together built as a barrier to consolidation.
I was exploring the idea that agnosticism was an actual position and was close to coming to accepting that as true, having spent some years re the examination.
A Christian Theist "put me right" re my misinformed view, and (agnostically) cast that identity off in a matter of moments, once the logic the Christian was showing me, made it all the way home (within my understanding) and this is because I had not shaped a dogma out of the idea that agnosticism should be seen as Agnosticism having its grand old place in the scheme of things "elevated" as an equal to Atheism and Theism.

So "The Wall" was something to be climbed and the climbing of it was in the examination agnostically performed.
But how did I end up "starting" on either side of the wall in order that I could then begin the climb?
This is where I agreed with the Christian Philosopher that it could be seen evidence of an intuitive knowing that "we exist within a created thing" (as I put it) and that "we know that we do" a intuition has it and "A Creator (God) did create it, (as the Christian put it.)

I know I started by being "born" (ina human experience) and whatever influences from that moment on contributed to my ending up (starting) the climb out of the quandary of a mix of both Atheism and Theism.

So what the...?

Am I?

Well I would say that I was born an agnostic (or should that be changed to "eggnogstick") and we all were (except maybe Baby Jesus) and it was that bouncing around between the two extremes which eventually has each of us choosing a side from that floating non-position (egg-whaterveritis) and once weened, sets forth on its human journey experience.

Now the wall wasn't there to begin with (when I was birthed) but I did begin to notice it as it solidified into my awareness, integrating the experience between mind and matter and as I began to notice the wall enclosing me, verily I did panic about that even to the point of screaming in the many manners of screaming one can...perhaps screaming them all.

But to no avail. The Universe is deathly quiet in that regard. There was no God voicing its concern for me - just a silent space that seemed to never end. The size of that wall seemed insurmountable but I was always glad of one thing. Even as is trapped me within it, it also expanded my horizon so that I wasn't in perpetual state of claustrophobia, unable to move because The Wall had enclosed me so tightly that climbing it was impossible.

Anyway, on top of all that I had to decide if this was something created or not because the question had been asked of me and I had been told there was a creator.

Also of course, the universe itself is a physical representation of that imagined wall (The one which was built through the non-integrated oppositions of Theism and Atheism) and thus - imagined or not - we are each forced to either remain at ground level (Camp Bedmaker) or prepare to be laughed at by one's peers if one starts telling of the "great invisible wall" which "requires climbing" How silly that doth look!

But I do have to say that the view is spectacular from out here. (I say "out" rather that "up" since that is the perspective from out here.

Too soon?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that seeks to provide arguments for theological topics (such as the existence of a deity) based on reason and the discoveries of science, the project of arguing for the existence of God on the basis of observed natural facts, and through natural phenomena viewed as divine, or complexities of nature seen as evidence of a divine plan (see predestination) or Will of God, which includes nature itself.

These are interesting perspectives.

One thing I have been thinking about, which relates to a definition of a position that turns away from theistic supplication and the idea of being a servant or slave of god’s will, is the science of magic. The idea of conscious definition (excuse the New Age term “visualization”) of what one’s object is, and employing one’s power, psychic, will, or otherwise, within one’s limitations, for the attainment of one’s object.

[I do recognize the Faustian problem …]

In contradistinction to the notion of “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Zion and all things shall be added unto you”.

In fact, examining the Occidental this-world tendency (proactive, responsible, creative), it seems to me this has been our methodology. Indeed, our sciences resulted not from weak supplication of the divine, but emboldened partnership with (what was conceived of as) divine intelligence.

Also, it is possible, if one is inclined, to have (define, believe in) a god-concept, perhaps visualizing a god-being, that is not your overlord or a dictatorial, controlling entity, but your partner in creation.

[VVilliam]

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that seeks to provide arguments for theological topics (such as the existence of a deity) based on reason and the discoveries of science, the project of arguing for the existence of God on the basis of observed natural facts, and through natural phenomena viewed as divine, or complexities of nature seen as evidence of a divine plan (see predestination) or Will of God, which includes nature itself.

These are interesting perspectives.

One thing I have been thinking about, which relates to a definition of a position that turns away from theistic supplication and the idea of being a servant or slave of god’s will, is the science of magic. The idea of conscious definition (excuse the New Age term “visualization”) of what one’s object is, and employing one’s power, psychic, will, or otherwise, within one’s limitations, for the attainment of one’s object.

[I do recognize the Faustian problem …]

In contradistinction to the notion of “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Zion and all things shall be added unto you”.

In fact, examining the Occidental this-world tendency (proactive, responsible, creative), it seems to me this has been our methodology. Indeed, our sciences resulted not from weak supplication of the divine, but emboldened partnership with (what was conceived of as) divine intelligence.

Also, it is possible, if one is inclined, to have (define, believe in) a god-concept, perhaps visualizing a god-being, that is not your overlord or a dictatorial, controlling entity, but your partner in creation.

Co-creators. Essentially it could be argued that the unfolding events are orchestrated in this manner - an overall "mind" organising minds within its influence toward an objective which the participant human mind/personality gives permission for and support to.

Is that describing Theism in a nutshell?

[bahman]

Well, I read about 43 pages of this thread and I didn't find any debate on the topics!

[seeds]

Why is there a God who is so *invisible* and so absent from the world when it is conceivable that, in a truly god-world, that everything would be made totally plain. Why such a tricky and shadowy God who sets things up in such a strange manner?

Time and time again I have answered that question with a question.

And the question is:

If the absolute truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny was "...made totally plain..." and presented to you in the form of, say, an ever-present mystical doorway...



...through-which you (as a newlywed, for example) could literally see the love of your life who just died in a car crash, still alive and summoning you to join her in what appears to be a wondrous new form and setting that makes this earthly setting seem like some kind of "hell" in comparison,...

...would you or would you not voluntarily walk through the door to join her?

Or would you simply stay here and endure the pain and insanity of this lower dimension of reality until you are eventually forced through the doorway anyway, years later?

Or how about these folks...







Do you honestly believe that if they knew of - and had access to - such a doorway, that they could (or should) resist the temptation to walk through it? Especially if what has been "...made totally plain..." is that they (and all humans) are perfectly free to do so and there will be no negative judgment on their souls?

Think of the restriction placed on our ability to know of the absolute truth of our ultimate destiny as having been allegorically mentioned in the Bible in these Genesis verses...

"...And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:...

...So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life..."

And that, in essence, is the Bible's vague and inimitable way of stating why the truth of reality cannot be "...made totally plain..." to us, and is thus protected by that metaphorical flaming sword "...lest we put forth our hands, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..."

Indeed the "flaming sword" is simply emblematic of how important it is that the truth of our ultimate destiny is kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

Anyway, again, AJ, if it were "...made totally plain..." to you that not only would it be safe for you to walk through the doorway, but also, in doing so, your true and eternal form will be revealed to you (and it will be amazing),...

...would you walk through the door?
_______

[promethean75]

I'm quite confident AJ would say

[VVilliam]

Well, I read about 43 pages of this thread and I didn't find any debate on the topics!

What are the topics?

[VVilliam]

Why is there a God who is so *invisible* and so absent from the world when it is conceivable that, in a truly god-world, that everything would be made totally plain. Why such a tricky and shadowy God who sets things up in such a strange manner?

Time and time again I have answered that question with a question.

And the question is:

If the absolute truth of our ultimate and eternal destiny was "...made totally plain..." and presented to you in the form of, say, an ever-present mystical doorway...



...through-which you (as a newlywed, for example) could literally see the love of your life who just died in a car crash, still alive and summoning you to join her in what appears to be a wondrous new form and setting that makes this earthly setting seem like some kind of "hell" in comparison,...

...would you or would you not voluntarily walk through the door to join her?

Or would you simply stay here and endure the pain and insanity of this lower dimension of reality until you are eventually forced through the doorway anyway, years later?

Or how about these folks...







Do you honestly believe that if they knew of - and had access to - such a doorway, that they could (or should) resist the temptation to walk through it? Especially if what has been "...made totally plain..." is that they (and all humans) are perfectly free to do so and there will be no negative judgment on their souls?

Think of the restriction placed on our ability to know of the absolute truth of our ultimate destiny as having been allegorically mentioned in the Bible in these Genesis verses...

"...And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:...

...So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life..."

And that, in essence, is the Bible's vague and inimitable way of stating why the truth of reality cannot be "...made totally plain..." to us, and is thus protected by that metaphorical flaming sword "...lest we put forth our hands, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever..."

Indeed the "flaming sword" is simply emblematic of how important it is that the truth of our ultimate destiny is kept hidden from us so that we are not tempted to seek it out prematurely.

Anyway, again, AJ, if it were "...made totally plain..." to you that not only would it be safe for you to walk through the doorway, but also, in doing so, your true and eternal form will be revealed to you (and it will be amazing),...

...would you walk through the door?
_______

Are you coming from Theism or Atheism?

[VVilliam]

One is somewhat at a loss to know how Immanuel interprets those who, located in other cultures and traditions, do certainly *believe in God* but are not Christian.

Very simple. They are Theists. And in that very broad category, I would include everything from Hindus to Unitarians to the Amish, and everyone else that believes in a god of any kind. For the category "Theist" has only something to say about the existence of A god or gods, and nothing whatsoever about the secondary question, "What sort of 'god' is being considered."

To be a Theist is not enough, of course. But it's a very good first step.

Yes. The second step is getting out of the bed one made for oneself re choosing Theism rather than Atheism. Then there is the great invisible wall to ascend.

[bahman]

Well, I read about 43 pages of this thread and I didn't find any debate on the topics!

What are the topics?

Atheism.

[Immanuel Can]

One is somewhat at a loss to know how Immanuel interprets those who, located in other cultures and traditions, do certainly *believe in God* but are not Christian.

Very simple. They are Theists. And in that very broad category, I would include everything from Hindus to Unitarians to the Amish, and everyone else that believes in a god of any kind. For the category "Theist" has only something to say about the existence of A god or gods, and nothing whatsoever about the secondary question, "What sort of 'god' is being considered."

To be a Theist is not enough, of course. But it's a very good first step.

Yes. The second step is getting out of the bed one made for oneself re choosing Theism rather than Atheism.

I'm not sure I understand that comment. It seems to me that the second question is the one I was saying, namely, "What sort of God?" I can't see what "question" you're even indicating.

Maybe you'll explain.

Then there is the great invisible wall to ascend.

The "wall of" ? What?

[VVilliam]

Well, I read about 43 pages of this thread and I didn't find any debate on the topics!

What are the topics?

Atheism.

Atheism are the topics? Is Theism (which is mentioned within the 43 pages) not related to Atheism topics?

[VVilliam]

Very simple. They are Theists. And in that very broad category, I would include everything from Hindus to Unitarians to the Amish, and everyone else that believes in a god of any kind. For the category "Theist" has only something to say about the existence of A god or gods, and nothing whatsoever about the secondary question, "What sort of 'god' is being considered."

To be a Theist is not enough, of course. But it's a very good first step.

Yes. The second step is getting out of the bed one made for oneself re choosing Theism rather than Atheism.

I'm not sure I understand that comment. It seems to me that the second question is the one I was saying, namely, "What sort of God?" I can't see what "question" you're even indicating.

Maybe you'll explain.

Yes - that would be getting out of the bed one makes in the choosing.

Then there is the great invisible wall to ascend.

The "wall of" ? What?

The wall of theist beliefs about the nature of the creator.