If atheism is true would you want to know?

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Errors are part of the process to solving problems.

IF the seeking IS for the TRUTH, and not to prove ANYTHING less, or anything else, or to JUSTIFY SIN (which many try, and none succeed) .
Some or many posts look like a false motive = at best )maybe< pretending to want to know truth, while serving darkness and promoting error. Especially when it involves society/ the world/ instead of Scripture, instead of God's Word, instead of truth.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Promoting false teachings >
Promoting false gospels >
Promoting error, instead of seeking truth from the Creator and Jesus >

Here is a Wikipedia article I found describing the role of "the Truth" in Gnosticism

Here is another article describing some Jewish gnostic ideas:

" It is difficult to know exactly what the author of the Gospel of John believed, but I suspect "the Truth" referred to an aeon. Of course Jesus claimed to be several different aeons - the Word, the Way, the Light, and the Truth. Maybe in claiming to be several aeons, Jesus was claiming to be the source of all those aeons - "the Bythos/the One"?"
=====================================
No, it is not difficult to know.
The heavenly FATHER REVEALS IT SIMPLY to "little children" He is Please with/ it is His Good Pleasure

TO REVEAL THE TRUTH to the PURE IN HEART.

 

[AvisG]

When the gospel had Jesus say "I am the Truth" what do you think that meant? I imagine it was a concept from Hellenistic philosophies similar to "the Logos/Word". I doubt that "I only want the truth, and Jesus is Truth" makes any more sense than "I only want the word, and Jesus is Word". When the gospel Jesus said "I am the Truth" he was probably claiming to be an aspect of God. The Hellenistic philosophers imagined an ultimate incomprehensible god spawning evermore comprehensible gods/manifestations. "the Logos" was one of these more accessible forms of God, and I imagine "the Truth" was another.

I happen to love the Gospel of John simply because it is the most intellectual and mystical and Hellenistic of the Gospels. That being said, I have always been troubled by how very many of the really divisive Christian doctrines have their origin in John (and/or Revelation).

If Jesus actually said something as startling as "I am the way and the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me" - well, it seems almost inconceivable that some version of this would not have appeared in at least one of the earlier Synoptic Gospels. The most reasonable conclusion, in my pretty well-informed opinion, is that John is less a historical report than an agenda-driven Gospel intended to address key issues at the time it was written (just as the author of Matthew obviously had an agenda to emphasize the Jewishness of Jesus and his "fulfillment" of numerous OT passages).

Even if John were historically accurate, what would it mean to say "No man comes to the Father except through me?" Does this necessarily support the doctrine of Christian exclusivity in the way in which it is typically framed? Does "even to those who believe in his name" necessarily support the doctrine of salvation in the way it is typically framed? It doesn't seem to me that these doctrines necessarily follow. I don't say they aren't true, merely that they seem to me to have thin foundations. I could see what they might have meant to the audience to whom the Gospel of John was directed, which isn't necessarily what they are commonly understood to mean today.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

agenda-driven

Yahuweh's Agenda.
Not man's.
Not society's.
Not religion.

The Word of Scripture is Breathed, Inspired by Yahuweh SOVEREIGN CREATOR - not by the flesh, not by the will of men, but HIS WILL, HIS WORD.

 

[AvisG]

I am basically proposing in this thread that believing and practiciing a false religion can be better than having no religion.

Well, of course, that can be true.

The hurdle we can't seem to get over is that "better" is entirely subjective. Depending on one's social and cultural circumstances, genetic and psychological propensities, and other factors, some version of militant atheism, gung-ho Scientology or extreme fundamentalist Christianity may be "better" for the individual.

"Believing in something," albeit false, may be "better" for some individuals than "believing in nothing." "Believing in nothing," albeit false, may be "better" for some individuals than "believing in something." (In most cases, "believing in nothing" is actually "believing in something" - a commitment of some sort has been made.)

We would have to have an agreed-upon definition of "better." This is why I believe the standard has to be ontological Truth rather than "whatever gets you through the night." Without a clear and mutually agreed upon definition, the discussion is just going to go round and round.

"It is better to live a life based upon a diligent quest for ontological Truth and a sincere understanding of ontological Truth that reflects one's experiences, observations, studies, reflection and intuition (while acknowledging that this understanding can never rise to the level of certainty) than to life a life based upon perceived worldly benefits" - Me.

Someone else may vehemently disagree with this - but it's because we have different definitions of "better."

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If believing a false answer can give you the same benefits as believing a true answer, and if there is no true answer available, then isn't the fool who believes the false answer the winner over the wise who believe nothing?

No.
"the same benefits" on earth, lead down the path TO DESTRUCTION FOREVER.
same with false religion.

seeking "benefits" does not lead to Jesus nor to eternal life.

 

[cloudyday2]

No.
"the same benefits" on earth, lead down the path TO DESTRUCTION FOREVER.
same with false religion.

seeking "benefits" does not lead to Jesus nor to eternal life.

You are supposed to imagine that the gods if they exist at all do not care what we believe and how we live. Would you want to know that or would you prefer to believe in Christianity where God cares and there is hope of eternal life and so forth? Wouldn't you agree that truth isn't necessarily the best thing in such a hypothetical scenario?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

You are supposed to imagine that the gods if they exist at all do not care what we believe and how we live. Would you want to know that or would you prefer to believe in Christianity where God cares and there is hope of eternal life and so forth? Wouldn't you agree that truth isn't necessarily the best thing in such a hypothetical scenario?

That is all reasons apparently that people STAY ON THE WIDE ROAD TO DESTRUCTION IN REALITY, IN TRUTH.
THus their souls and bodies are destroyed.

IS THAT what you are seeking !?

 

[cloudyday2]

That is all reasons apparently that people STAY ON THE WIDE ROAD TO DESTRUCTION IN REALITY, IN TRUTH.
THus their souls and bodies are destroyed.

IS THAT what you are seeking !?

Mostly I seek to get through each day and eventually reach the end of my life without doing any serious harm to anybody else and to feel some hope and pleasure and maybe even help others. That isn't an easy goal for a depressed person.

This from @awitch earlier would probably help if I had the discipline to do those things (meditation and so on):
"Paganism is more about seeing the world and you're place in it, mixed with self expression and a celebration of creativity".

There are related thoughts on spirituality I found in an article about Sam Harris:
"He writes that the purpose of spirituality (as he defines it – he concedes that the term's uses are diverse and sometimes indefensible) is to become aware that our sense of self is illusory, and says this realization brings both happiness and insight into the nature of consciousness."
Sam Harris - Wikipedia

Depression is a rotten state, and most of what I do is an attempt to cope - self medicating, diverting my mind with discussions on forums, riding my bicycle, etc. I am like a rat in a wheel trying to stay ahead of depression, and you are asking me about the future.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That is all reasons apparently that people STAY ON THE WIDE ROAD TO DESTRUCTION IN REALITY, IN TRUTH.
THus their souls and bodies are destroyed.

IS THAT what you are seeking !?

Things you posted involve things that destroy faith, and lead to destruction of souls and bodies.
Except some! >>

Mostly I seek to get through each day and eventually reach the end of my life without doing any serious harm to anybody else and to feel some hope and pleasure and maybe even help others. That isn't an easy goal for a depressed person.

So then, WHAT IS GOOD TO SEEK? (for anyone often depressed?)
THis?? >>> (certainly hope not) To STAY a depressed person, posting things that lead to people's not having faith in God, and potentially to the destruction of their bodies and souls? (HARMING THEM)
OR
RATHER
(as you posted "mostly I seek")
live and post (talk/discuss) "without doing any serious harm to anybody else" ?
and "maybe even help others" ?
THIS could be good - seeking the right things.... what are the right things ?
Start maybe with helping others,
and do not neglect harming no one else,
and do not neglect seeking joy and peace IN PLACE OF (instead of) depression ?

Depression is a rotten state, and most of what I do is an attempt to cope - self medicating, diverting my mind with discussions on forums, riding my bicycle, etc. I am like a rat in a wheel trying to stay ahead of depression, and you are asking me about the future.

ABOUT today, TODAY has enough problems for TODAY.
What you desire to find,
What you desire TODAY ......

 

[awitch]

Yahuweh's Agenda.
Not man's.
Not society's.
Not religion.

The Word of Scripture is Breathed, Inspired by Yahuweh SOVEREIGN CREATOR - not by the flesh, not by the will of men, but HIS WILL, HIS WORD.

Remember, it must be TRUE if it's typed in ALL caps.

 

[Zoness]

@awitch and @Zoness , here is a question. I am basically proposing in this thread that believing and practiciing a false religion can be better than having no religion. However, it seems that many pagans do not actually believe in their religions. These pagans apparently find that practicing a religion that is false and that they do not believe can be better than having no religion. Do you agree? (You both have some experience with paganism.)

I have also read that behaving as though you believe something can sometimes create belief. An atheist blogger described how he burns incense to cleanse his home when he feels things are off and over time he believes in a strange way that it works.

I believe in my religion insofar as I find it a useful way to conceptualize the numinous subjective human experience and in that way it has tremendous value to me personally. My view on divinity moved away from Polytheism and towards a mix of Pantheism and Process Theology (if you can trudge through reading Whitehead) where the divine is immanant and experiential.

What this affords me is a realistic way to engage with a foggy concept; I don't have to invest belief in a distant, transcendent perfectly good god becuase the changing universe is the divine experience. I don't believe in the flower fields; I see and experience them and they exist in a space where they're interconnected with me in a philosphical sense.

While the soul and afterlife aren't concepts I believe in, I believe in the power of myth and story and ritual as an ordering factor in human life. But like awitch I'm comfortable treating my religion in subjective postmodern sense and realize others may not resonate with it. The experience of religion is deeply personal and everyone can choose or not choose the journey.

This is confusing because I'm a humanist and adjacent to atheistic communities. A rising tide lifts all minority religious boats in a secular society and I share a lot of similarities in outlook on society is liberal atheists. It's confusing for the average Westerner to see religion in any way that isn't rooted in the domineering expansionist mission of Christianity. I'm often regarded as not serious about my belief system because I'm not working hard to convert others. That idea is foreign to me and is a Christian artifact but I'm finding myself frequently confronting it due to lack of familiarity by others.

 

[TheOldWays]

I'm often regarded as not serious about my belief system because I'm not working hard to convert others.

odd for sure. i don't even see that in my experiences in the Catholic Church. maybe more of a protestant thing.

 

[cloudyday2]

odd for sure. i don't even see that in my experiences in the Catholic Church. maybe more of a protestant thing.

My understanding is that the Catholic Church has been very actively promoting Catholicism in Africa. Of course other denominations have been evangelizing in Africa too.

I think the difference between Catholics and Protestants with respect to evangelism is due to the centralized government of Catholicism. The leadership of Catholicism can coldly look at the situation and decide that it is best to evangelize only in Africa. The grassroots leadership of Protestantism simply reads the Great Commission in the gospel and immediately tries to evangelize the nearest person.

That's my take FWIW

 

[Silmarien]

There are related thoughts on spirituality I found in an article about Sam Harris:
"He writes that the purpose of spirituality (as he defines it – he concedes that the term's uses are diverse and sometimes indefensible) is to become aware that our sense of self is illusory, and says this realization brings both happiness and insight into the nature of consciousness."
Sam Harris - Wikipedia

This has always struck me as a really strange statement. How does one realize that one's sense of self is illusory? You've got to have some sense of self in order to have any sort of insight into the nature of consciousness at all. It's not like there's a point during meditation at which you suddenly cease to have any sort of subjective experience--altered states of consciousness are still states of consciousness, and you can't have a state of consciousness without a subject to experience it.

I think there's something to the Vedic intuition that much of what we associate with the sense of self is illusory, but strip that all away and the self is still going to remain.

 

[zippy2006]

It's not like there's a point during meditation at which you suddenly cease to have any sort of subjective experience...

According to Buddhists there is. I mean, there are even stages of sleep where we have no subjective experience.

 

[dlamberth]

…. you can't have a state of consciousness without a subject to experience it.

Unless one loses themselves into Consciousness and becomes One with it such that it's no longer a "state". Kind of like self Consciousness merging into Universal Consciousness and becoming One with it. Ask the Mystics, they know.

 

[cloudyday2]

Unless one loses themselves into Consciousness and becomes One with it such that it's no longer a "state". Kind of like self Consciousness merging into Universal Consciousness and becoming One with it. Ask the Mystics, they know.

Yeah, that is how I see the commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself". It goes beyond feeling sorry for the homeless person and inviting him or her into your house. It is seeing that you and the homeless person are the same being. Therefore you cannot be in warmth in a house if the homeless person is cold outside.

That is how I see karma too. If the universe is all one being and each person merely a part then obviously the ripples we create return to us - even without reflecting back from something. The idea of being reincarnated as a lizard as a punishment is a juvenile way of looking at karma. We are already the lizard. What we do to others is done to ourselves immediately.

There is also the body of Christ thing. The universe is one body with many parts.

Of course it is one thing to expound that view and another to experience it. If we can experience oneness then we could feel joy because there is always joy somewhere in the universe.

 

[cloudyday2]

This has always struck me as a really strange statement. How does one realize that one's sense of self is illusory? You've got to have some sense of self in order to have any sort of insight into the nature of consciousness at all. It's not like there's a point during meditation at which you suddenly cease to have any sort of subjective experience--altered states of consciousness are still states of consciousness, and you can't have a state of consciousness without a subject to experience it.

I think there's something to the Vedic intuition that much of what we associate with the sense of self is illusory, but strip that all away and the self is still going to remain.

I don't know about it from a philosophical perspective, but in my experience the consciousness of being one with the universe is our natural state that we can remember if we can quiet our minds. When people have psychosis this is one thing that is typical - they feel less separation between themselves and their environments. That might indicate that the oneness is innate to humans if it manifests during mental illness.

Also the consciousness of oneness is a progressive thing it seems to me. I have only experienced it slightly, but apparently it is possible to experience it slightly. The Buddhists also claim various stages of meditation.

 

[cloudyday2]

@Silmarien , in addition to the "oneness" idea in spirituality there is also the "illusion" idea. The idea that everything is an illusion is actually more appealing to me. It is interesting that Hinduism and Buddhism seem to contain both ideas. The idea that everything is an illusion shows up in psychosis too. Sometimes I think that it should be o.k. to harm people because they are only illusions. The illusion idea is kind of antisocial and immoral, so it is odd that these religions combine it with the oneness idea.

Maybe ultimately all these religious philosophies are full of holes.