Calling All Atheists

[Emproph]

Just suppose you were a psychotherapist and you had never heard or read anything about the dogma of Christianity.

Just suppose you had a client who is explaining his internal world to you.

Just suppose he had told you he often has conversations with a man who died over 2000 years ago.

Just suppose you question your client as to what this person looked like and he answers he does not know. When you question his not knowing, he answers "The man I speak to is invisible."

Just suppose you ask him for more details about this invisible man and he answers that the invisible man was his own father and son and the Holy Ghost all at the same time.

Just suppose you press for more information and you are told that this invisible person is really three people but remains one.

Just suppose your client tells you that this invisible man's mother never had sexual relations yet gave birth to this man.

Just suppose your client tells you when asked where this invisible man lives that he tells you he lives up there in the stratosphere.

Just suppose your client tells you that once a week he partakes in the ritual of eating this man's flesh and drinking his blood in a mass ceremony with many other people.

Just suppose your client tells you that he will never die because he is going to a place where people will live forever.

Just suppose your client tells you that even though his body will be consumed his soul, that is also invisible, will live forever.

Just suppose your client tells you that he will meet all of his deceased friends and relatives in this place high above the clouds.

Just suppose the client tells you that twice a week he visits a man, who is unseen, in a little cubicle to listen to the crimes he has committed during the week. If the crimes are severe he is told to say a "Hail Mary" prayer ten times depending upon the gravity of the crime and they will be excused.

Just suppose your client tells you that there are certain laws he must follow or he will be punished in a sea of fire for eternity.

Just suppose your client tells you that there is a certain man called the Devil who watches over him in that sea of fire to be sure he suffers.

Just suppose your client tells you that it is okay to suffer pain during your lifetime because he will be rewarded for his suffering after he dies.

Just suppose you have to diagnose your client for a Mental Status Exam, what would be your diagnoses?

by Dr. N. Joseph Newton www.atheistfellowship.com

Which begs the question, if I’m truly inane, and have the capacity to recognize my own inanity, would that not make me nane?

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by antonyh

Are you saying that the human race can't be good without God?

I'm saying good itself is God. But conscious.

[Emproph]

..but without the inherent "evil" connotation normally associated with the word atheists.

Originally Posted by ladyinred

I'm just going to say it. I respect another's right to think what they want and believe what they want. I was on a forum that attacked atheists one time, and I said I would not join them in their attack on atheists, many of these people are dedicated to promoting human rights and also support rights for GLBT people. It is not my place to judge them, period, or to force my religious or spiritual convictions down their throat.Yes ,many of them are brilliant and creative as well. I can say there are people who have become atheist or agnostic because of religion (Being told they were going to hell, sound familiar?)And cannot reconcile their belief system with what they see as injustice or unfairness and unloving God.

I was even on a forum where someone remarked atheists are evil. I asked why? They could not give me a response. We in the LGBT community do not like to be marginalized and I feel it is just as unfair to do this to atheists.I absolutely refuse to be a part of that. I will take the stand, that I am not superior to someone because of my beliefs or convictions,in fact I am not superior to anyone.While all beliefs may not be on equal footing (And I'm talking about those that harm or denigrate others), all men are created equal.

Lady in red I agree with what you said, and I think you stated it very eloquently. I hope that from all I've written since, you've gotten a different impression of what I'm talking about.

It's about me, not them. I basically want to play philosophy hardball with an atheist who's game. But that might be too much too ask of this forum. Is it? Am I asking too much? Is it too contentious a subject for Soulforce?

Maybe it is, and maybe it's my fault for not recognizing this, but it's kind of hard to talk about non-theism without talking about the actual human beings who are non-theistic.

Or maybe I'm wrong about that too..

[u-dog]

Emproph,

I have ABSOLUTELY no interest in participating in this thread, but I enjoy a good game of philosophical hardball once in a while and see no reason that you and Rick can't HAVE AT IT. Just be careful with each other, OK? We all love you both and don't want to see anyone get hurt or anything valuable get broken (like your relationship with each other).

You two keep checking in with each other about process and if we get concerned we will do what my wife used to do when our kids were Wrasslin in the other room. We'll poke our heads in and ask: "Is this still fun for everyone?"

Dave

[nmwolfboy]

Patrick, this thread's over my head!

However, i've a suggestion in case your pursuit of debate on this topic doesn't pan out here at SF. Bishop Spong is a vocal proponent of nontheism. One of his books that addresses this topic (among others) has spawned a message board where you might find some folks spoiling for juicy debate on the topic.

Just a thought - i don't know if you'd find it helpful or not.

Pax

scott

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Yes. The Golden Rule, the ONLY sway there is – whether you call that kind of love “God” or not...


They may have ‘believed’ in the god – as in their own egos, but they certainly weren’t worshiping any god of Love. I need to start using the word Love instead of the word God, to avoid the religious/dogma bull, so that at least my intention is understood.

And to that end, and I’ve always believed this and I’m sure I’ve said it around here before, if you believe in love, you believe in God. Calling it God is irrelevant and inconsequential. Like I said, to me, any atheist who believes in love/the golden rule, is a Christian and believes in God – in my book.

Unconditional love is their god in the sense that that’s what’s most important to them, that’s what they “worship.” Doing what is right is what “rules” their lives. And Christian in the adjective sense. They are Christ-i-an in nature, they are loving in nature.

evity.

Oh God Emproph!!!! (I guess that should read "Oh Love Emproph! )

By your system, I was always a Christian, never an atheist, and presumably everyone I met (while I was young anyway, not the peeps I've met recently, like this forum) who claimed to be a Christian was an atheist. And my atheist best guy bud in college is also Christian.

In which case, I can't possibly explain to you what the atheists are thinking because I've never been able to understand them myself.

You and I have backwards definitions in common, to a great degree. (I'll have to start a thread explaining how my definition of "Christian" got royally screwed up to mean its opposite, but let's discuss that later.)

I've always become cold with fury when people denounce atheists (oops, I mean Emproph's Christians) as being dangerous, untrustworthy, even evil: because one becomes an atheist (darnit I mean Christian!) if one sees past the belief in a self-centered white dude on a throne in the sky to the heart of oneness that is the universe.

Atheism (some day I'll get it right, I mean Christianity), to me, meant: the entire universe is interconnected, the life of a star billions of years ago created the atomic particles that are now my body, which in less than a century will fertilize the earth, bla bla bla, and the one thing that somehow continues is a kind of, let's call it consciousness, and from that consciousness I know that all animated beings share consciousness too: they suffer, they hurt, they hunger, they long, they feel, they love, and who am *I* if I do not strive to comfort their hurt, feed their hunger, uphold and respect as sacred their ability to love?
That to me, was the definition of atheism (christianity???), so when I hear you ask how can an atheist understand love, I hear, How can one who edicates their whole being to loving service of life itself, understand love? And so your entire question made no sense to me.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Emproph

And to that end, and I’ve always believed this and I’m sure I’ve said it around here before, if you believe in love, you believe in God. Calling it God is irrelevant and inconsequential. Like I said, to me, any atheist who believes in love/the golden rule, is a Christian and believes in God – in my book.

Of course, an atheist would disagree with you. But you know what? Your line of thinking is not unlike what I have heard from various Buddhist's, who maintain that those who do Buddhist practice are 'Buddhists' no matter their faith. For them, if one is doing the practice (meditation etc), one is involved in being (revealing Buddha nature) rather than belief- and as such- this reveals a generosity and open heartedness on their part. That said, they are suspicious of the kind of thinking you expouse- that being that because one experiences love or compassion this is synonymous with 'God'. Why? Because it reveals a dualistic framework.

The person who is looking at the world through the lens of dualism 'sees' everything, whether is in external or internal, as though it is an object. And as such, this reveals what is called subject-object consciousness. To 'think' differently, to get out of this subject-object consciousness, is the whole point of a plethora of spiritual practice. And while it may seem paradoxical, these spiritual practices, if one looks closely at how they are used, have one thing in common: they aim to 'transcend' subject-object conscious through concentration practice, that is, the focusing of the mind on an external or internal object. In other words, one uses 'objects' to get beyond 'objects'.

This is why the Hindu who practices his mantra (internal object) in his cave for 15 years comes out of that experience saying things like "I am God". To the dualistic mind, it sounds like the guy has gone mad (and maybe he has! ) But the point I am trying to make here is that it is folly to use words and logic to convince others of things-which-are-not-things- that is- that which lies beyond the power of words and logic.

This is why the Zen people have their Koans and the Catholics their Hail Mary's. They are tools, and not, stictly speaking, the same as what they point to.

"All instruction is but a finger pointing to the moon; and those whose gaze is fixed upon the pointer will never see beyond. Even let him catch sight of the moon, and still he cannot see its beauty."

Though the Christian and the Buddhist both have esoteric practices which are intended to take the practioner beyond what is considered the smaller self or ego, what they posit in terms of ultimate reality is entirely different. For the Buddhist, there is no "God'. Yet they experience love and compassion as their Christian practitioner does.

From an empirical point of view, it would seem that the nature of man is what is in evidence here, and the atheist would probably agree with that.

[davidb]

Calling All Angels-Jane Siberry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUaXa--g900

One of my favorite moments from Six Feet Under.

[Joe Brummer]

I have been reading and thinking about a response to this thread since its birth. Aside from the fact I am an athiest, and I find this whole attitude that atheists cannot love without it being from god offensive I have thought out this response. I apologize if it offends, since that is not my intent.

My intent is to show the bigger picture that tends to get lost in our short lifespans, but over the course of history...how many gods have their been? How many doctrines have we seen, yet love has remained as it is. Love is not from god, but from us. Love lives inside us, it is just a part of us as is breathing and living. If you were to take this entire thread and change the word "love" to some other emotion like anger or greed would it change the dynamic you are striving for?

for example, here is Emorphs statement, but the words changed to show a different emotion, but just as powerful of an emotion. See how it changes the thinking of this thread:

Emorph wrote (with my changes):

They may have ‘believed’ in the god – as in their own egos, but they certainly weren’t worshiping any god of anger. I need to start using the word anger instead of the word God, to avoid the religious/dogma bull, so that at least my intention is understood.


The intention changes as the emotion changes. What Emorph isn't seeing is that Love is just an emotion, so is anger, greed, lust, joy and happiness. When you play with the words, things change. I hope you view changes as well as it is pretty offensive to those of us who do not believe in a god.

I remind everyone, if you want respect for your beliefs, then you must give that respect to others beliefs. I think Emorphs comments were sincerely curiosity, but nontheless we must respect that love is an emotion.

if you want to substitute a word for "god" then try "truth".

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

if you want to substitute a word for "god" then try "truth".

"Truth" it is.


And just for starter practice..

There has to be bigger before there can be smaller.

[Vortex]

First off, I know I'm coming into this late but I find this topic most intriguing, thanks for starting the post Emproph.

Originally Posted by Emproph

I think my argument there was that love expressed WITH the security of the knowledge of eternal life is superior to love expressed WITHOUT that security – perhaps not individually or always in practice, but at least in theory

Is this “security of the knowledge of eternal life” you speak of not a condition itself? If so it would seem to me that any ‘love’ based of this premise would too be conditional. So if I love someone not knowing that I will be rewarded with everlasting life or welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven or all the other great things promised by a dogma, how is my love less valuable to that of someone who loves knowing all these things?

Originally Posted by Emproph

Two things come to mind. Some people may not be bothered by the thought of eternal extinction the way I imagine that they should be – the way I would be – so that’s projection on my part.

And secondly, I think the same argument could be made of the security of having enough money. Eternal life takes care of the fear of death/extinction, enough money takes care of the fears of life – but that’s NOT always a good thing. Too much security can sometimes be a corrupting influence.

We have all observed the consequences of fear. It is out of fear and the hatred that comes with it that that the very necessity of these forums and the discourse that it facilitates has arisen. Violence, anger, and hatred all traced back to fear. I operate on a basic premise that anything done out of fear (in the psychological sense) is ultimately corrupt and I challenge anyone to refute this claim. Why then should my belief in God, or eternal life then be based upon fear.

Originally Posted by Emproph

It’s taken me nigh on 20 years to go through every possible combination of thought to get those brain connections to be able to see the process itself of seeing the boundless Love that is called God, but I think I’ve done it. That not exactly true, it actually does happen. and more importantly I think I can explain how it happens.

It's actually repeatable. It's the sight of perfection, and yes, it IS all in your mind.

But like I said before, not everyone is intellectually suited to this level of brain activity/organization. I would say that every brain is capable of it, but not every personality is even desirous of entertaining the complex thought concepts that maybe necessary to see what I want to talk about. Even I’M only capable of it part of the time!

But that's really my whole point. I want to be able to simplify that, soundbite the explanation of perfection if you will.

Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I think I can explain perfection.


I heard that. Yuck it up kids...

Wow. These statements are quite something. I've read them over several tmes now and... wow. They are either the work of an insane person or a genius. Now which is it E .

In all seriousness I really want to understand this discovery of yours but it is going to take some more explanation.


Vortex

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Vortex

Is this “security of the knowledge of eternal life” you speak of not a condition itself? If so it would seem to me that any ‘love’ based of this premise would too be conditional.

Vortex you are a genius. I was suggesting exactly that that condition was necessary to experience the full potential of its meaning without realizing the INHERENT FLAW within that thought.

I got chills after reading that and my hair stood on end for about a half an hour.

It is the atheist love, devoid of the security of ANY condition, including security itself, that is superior.

Which then begs the question, can theist love ever acheive that?

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by Vortex

I operate on a basic premise that anything done out of fear (in the psychological sense) is ultimately corrupt and I challenge anyone to refute this claim. Why then should my belief in God, or eternal life then be based upon fear.

oh, I’m feeling most grasshoppery master.. Nor should one’s non-belief in God, or non-belief in eternal life then either be based on fear..

Originally Posted by Vortex

Wow. These statements are quite something. I've read them over several tmes now and... wow. They are either the work of an insane person or a genius. Now which is it E

I think it’s clear that I’m clinically inane. Try as you may, you’ll never even get an honest definition of sinane (sic) or genius out of me.

In all seriousness I really want to understand this discovery of yours but it is going to take some more explanation.

Funny you should ask, I'm having this problem with the idea of nothing...so far I’ve figured out that it’s an illusion, but now I’m wondering how such an inanity actually came into being in the first place, when clearly there's no such thing. How could nothing come up with the idea of nothing when nothing is impossible to exist?

Even nothing is impossible for God.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by sjbouza

What is Atheism? I have always been taught, and I am sure incorrectly, that atheists are the equivalent to satanists. I am sure that you can know where those teachings came from. I have been more and more curious about what it really is beyond the rhetoric I have been taught.

Any info or websites that will give me a better understanding would be much appreciated. I have used ask.com and did some searching. However, I know there are a few of you in here and I just wanted to know of some "good" sites that you all would recommend.

Thanks tons,
Scott

Hey Scott,

Think about it as a-theism, as in not-theism, or nontheism, as listed below.

Wikipedia:

theism — roughly, the belief that gods or deities exist
atheism — roughly, an absence of belief in any gods or deities, or a belief that gods or deities do not exist at all.

Some classifications group atheism and agnosticism together under the classification of nontheism — absence of clearly identified belief in any deity.

It's an easy read and a good overview of the different theisms.

Also Google Freethinker, or Freethinkers. There's a lot of good stuff out there (as well as in here ).

Also www.ReligiousTolerance.org should go on your favorites list.

-Patrick

[sjbouza]

Emproph,

Thanks for the link and the explaination. I mean really I knew that I was always taught incorrectly, well I had a feeling anyway. I never knew it was that simple, because what I was taught and atheist was is so much more indepth. I look back and laugh at it now, maybe I shouldnt though.

The link to Religious Tolerance is great, thanks a million. Yes it is NOW in my favorites on my ibook G4. Yea I am one of "those guys". I absolutley HATE PC AND WINDOWS in any version.

Anyway, thanks a million again.
Scott

[edgelessdepths]

Emproph,

I don't post often on these threads but your topic caught my eye.

I am an atheist, defined to me as the lack of belief in a god(s)/goddess(s) existing per evidence that it/he/she/they exist.

Let me see if I have my head around what you are trying to say:

1) You seem to think that for a person to function (you mentioned brain connections) a sort of "supreme love" would have to exist first.


My reply: First as Rick mentioned what proof is there that a love of this sort exists/existed? Also, as far as scientists know emotions such as love are just that, emotions. They aren't special, they are simply a part of our body; chemicals being produced due to stimuli.

2) I gathered from context that you view love as a superior emotion.

My reply: I don't see why there is any reason to view that the emotion of love is in any way superior to other emotions.
Emotions and actions are only relatively superior depending on the society you live in and what is beneficial for the continuation of that society (and hence its people).

3) That a belief in an eternal existence somehow makes for a superior love. Though you seem to be reconsidering that position?

My reply: I frankly don't understand that position at all. I was a Christian up until my teenage years and was also briefly a Pagan. My beliefs or lack-there-of never affected how I felt about love or how I loved. My care and concern for people was/is independent of my religious beliefs or the absence of them.

4) You don't understand what it means to be an atheist.

My reply: To me being an atheist simply means that I don't consider there to be enough evidence to believe in a god existing. I have felt "god" before but now consider those experiences to be bogus; brought on be a great desire to feel what those around me purported to feel.

5) That something you are calling "love" or recently "truth" existed before existence.

My reply: Again, what proof do you have of this existence? It sound like that type of thing that cannot be proven and hence no atheist will accept it as sound evidence.

Hope this helps you understand at least one atheist's position.

- Elsa

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by edgelessdepths

5) That something you are calling "love" or recently "truth" existed before existence.

My reply: Again, what proof do you have of this existence? It sound like that type of thing that cannot be proven and hence no atheist will accept it as sound evidence.

Hope this helps you understand at least one atheist's position.

- Elsa

Thank you Elsa, it does. I think you confirmed three other person's exact sentiments, very succinctly.

The "proof" is pure logic, available to anyone. So I think exploring that is the next step. Nothing new under the Sun per se, but this time we're almost 7 Billion "nothing news under the sun" strong. I contend that this is an experiment that can/will, and is being tested, and about to be proven.

Science, religion, and philosophy are all just different parts of the elephant. Each is catching up with the other. As I understand it, you want to see it through science in the provable sense. Proof of the afterlife or a "god" could only be mathematical in that sense, and they've even determined the point where that "logic" breaks down.

And that's the ultimate conundrum of oneness. One is the ultimate freedom, it is infinite simplicity. It's the first possible thing that could happen. It's the only thing that could be. The ultimate logic requires illogic, it can never be purely logical.

Without oneness first, there can be no separateness. Without unconditional love first, there can be no idea of conditional love, and all negative emotions. Nothing doesn't generate itself. It can't, the concept itself does not exist. There literally is no such thing as the idea of nothing.

It's the proverbial "rock" that's too big for God to lift. Even God cannot create nothing, but, an "all powerful Love" who is God, could definitely make the illusion of the idea of nothing, and entire universes based on it.

Without the idea of nothing, everything just IS (all one).

That's just the standpoint I'm at, not an explanation - yet.

I haven't even totally replied to your post, but thank you. I think I know how to approach this now, not that I'm going to "convert any atheists" or anything, but hopefully I'll make more sense while making a fool of myself..

I swear to you, I am convinced that understanding the concept of nothing is the key to the universe.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by Emproph

See now to my experience, I would call that agnosticism. Because the question still exists.

To me, true atheism suggests a position that an ordering force of any kind cannot possibly ever be proven – Perhaps this mindset is rarer than I think?

And if you see love, you see God. ‘Taint no “he” any more than "He's" a star. That’s a bit more accurate a description of where I’m starting from.

To me, Atheism is not saying that a god can't be proven. It's saying that evidence of a god has yet to be proven. Some may consider that to be Agnosticism. I prefer to call it being a non-believer; a person who sees no evidence in God, Satan, spirits, demons, angels, ghosts, unicorns, leprechans, elves, fairries, gremlins, zombies, or any invisible beings or supernatural events that don't hold up to scientific scrutiny.

As far as "seeing" love; I think what you mean is seeing acts of love. Nobody can see love because love is a human emotion, not something you can see. Acts of love happen all the time and it has nothing to do with the existence of a god. Love is an emotion produced by brain waves. It has nothing to do with an imaginary, invisible deity.

I've heard people say, "Love is in the air," as if they actually believe that love is mixed in with the oxygen molecules in the air. That's impossible. A human emotion cannot float around outside the body. Pollution is in the air. Moisture is in the air. Dust is in the air. Bacteria is in the air. But love is not in the air.

Originally Posted by Emproph

Unconditional love, or God as I call it, had to come first before all the conditional human facets of that “emotion” could also exist, including evil.

What evidence do you have for this?

Rick

[u-dog]

If there WERE a God, Rick. One who is infinite and eternal (that is to say one who holds the whole universe in the palm of his/her metaphorical hand and lives outside of Time ... what evidence would you EXPECT to see?

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by u-dog

If there WERE a God, Rick. One who is infinite and eternal (that is to say one who holds the whole universe in the palm of his/her metaphorical hand and lives outside of Time ... what evidence would you EXPECT to see?

Good question.

In the 55 years of my life here on earth, all the "evidence" I've ever had that God exists is that people have told me, "God exists." Or they point to a book that was written 20 centuries ago that they tell me God wrote, and use it as proof that God exists. Or they'll point to the ocean and say, "The ocean extists therefore God exists." Or they said, "We exists therefore God exists."

For 54 years I bought this as evidence that God existed. I basically believed that God existed simply because everybody else believed that God existed. Therefore, I thought, if everybody else believes it then it must be true.

So up until about a year ago I believed that God existed without ever questioning it. But then I started hanging around a fundamentalist buddy of mine who had some far-out beliefs about God. It made me start thinking about my own beliefs.

The first thing I did was read the Bible. I had read parts of the Bible before. But this time I wanted to read it all. What I found was a bunch of ridiculous nonsense. One was a story about a talking donkey. Seriously. A donkey that talks.

I don't believe a donkey or any animal can speak a human language. Stories about talking animals are absurd. Seriously. The donkey in "Shrek".....it's not a real donkey. It's a cartoon. The voice is Eddy Murphy's. It's not real. Ask any six year old.

I wouldn't want to live nextdoor to someone who believed animals can talk. Son of Sam believed his dog talked to him. That was just before he murdered a dozen people. Anybody who believes that animals can talk needs some serious and immediate psychotherapy.

If the Bible lies about talking animals then why should I believe it about anything else?

I started doing research on evidence that God actually existed. I found none. Zero. Zippo. Not one single speck of credible evidence that an invisible force exists somewhere out there beyond the clouds controlling everything.

The only thing that I found that God existed was that other people "believed" that God existed. People had "faith" that God existed. And faith is what people have when they have no evidence to back up what they believe. It's like having faith that there's gold at the end of a rainbow. Nobody has ever seen the gold, but does that mean it doesn't exists? YES!!

As far as evidence that God exists? I'd need to see him with my own eyes. I'd need to hear him. I'd need to see him do magic that can't be disproven through scientific research.

If there's a god....where is he? Why is he so mysterious?

The Bible says that God demands that we believe in him or we'll spend eternity in hellish torture. Eternity!! Not a week. Not a month. Not a year. Not even a hundred years. But eternity. Forever. Pain with no end.

God tells us in the Bible that animals can talk and that burning bushes and snakes give advice. Then he threatens us with eternal pain and agony if we don't believe in him. Then he hides from us.

Yet, he loves us.

Sure. That makes perfect sense.

Rick