No Such Thing as Atheism.

[Larniavc]

Think everything we want to understand requires logic and reason, otherwise we are just pee-ing into the wind with our imagination.

Belief is how we run our life. Having faith that our bus will be at the stop,
tht we will still have a job come Monday, that the sun will rise tomorrow.
These are 'True beliefs' but do not always come true as we know.

Then there is something called 'false beliefs'
and I put some atheists and other adherents in this category.
False beliefs tend to be mixed in with true beliefs to make them more
plausible. EG. My bus will be at the stop, the sun will rise tomorrow AND
JC might come with rapture and take me under his wing for eternity.
Or I will have a job tomorrow and there is no God!

Then this is all auto reinforced, programmed and rebanked overnight which perpetuates and strengthens the belief as does every religious prayer, hymn, affirmation conversation etc. A maintenace of the trance. (the trances we live). It becomes word.

If we went for a walk in any atheists' mind, to the impression memory where
beliefs about this and that are stored, we would find that there would be a file marked 'beliefs about God. I mean, Who has not thought about a creator?
To say so would be a lie. If you have an open file with contents you have a belief set in god wether in the positive negative sense or what ever.
To say you have no belief set would be dishonest.

The file is set up in the impression memory, and not the factual files
(since no one has met God in conscious mind language I know of).
This means it is part of a believers/non believers attitude or opinion...
which is their imagination.The imagination and will trick us into thinking
we do not have a belief when we probably have many billions of trillions of bits of information stored on that very subject

Skeptics will argue some BS about we cannot prove a no belief but do they really hold that position? Why shouldnIbelieve them when I share the same biology and mindset. So that I am not so easily thrown off the trail scent of all Atheist causation.

Our mind being the false, can present whatever view it likes as word to the observer. We are not party to the internal muse that underlies this position.
We each have a dual honesty and within limits it is permitted as our falseness
which the mind must balance with sincerity in being human with all the complexities of humanity.

Few atheists would be stupid enpugh to consider that there was no causasion in the universe or cosmology The causation they internally hold, becomes the creator or God. Thus a poor discrimination (lack of knowledge) of nature would provide a poor estimation of the creator (if an atheist had one.)
__________________

Summary about theists real reasons, any of these could be apply
1. Anti Judist, Christian or Muslim semitism taken as pa protest.
2. Have not comprehended that one cannot NOT have a view about God
if they have been discussing it.
Here atheists are logically and rationally assigned one regardless as a
collective God as default for the people who think they do not believe in
Gods.
The God of the atheist mind is the God of Absolute Materialism.
3. Some side with science as a high ground debating starting point,
while not needing to know anything much of science. Just that
the 'G' word would seem to be outside the mandate of science so can easily
be defended in layman's debates.
4 Insincerity. where one beief is held at public or at work and another
practised behind closed doors. EG a paid clergy who is really an atheist
or a paid astrophysicist who is Muslim = paid yay or nay sayers.
5. In trance where someone can hold two opposing veiws at the same time.
6. From Phobia or Previous life negative experience.
&. ??

It seems as if you have very little grasp on human psychology. Why don't you take a course? You will find the beliefs that people hold are far more nuanced than the sophomore logic you have presented.

 

[SkyWriting]

From Phobia or Previous life negative experience.

This seems to be the main opposition to belief in God.
There is usually a person or a specific incident that
offended the "non believer" and they insist that
everyone else should also embody their hate against
what they considered to be "holy" to them.

 

[SkyWriting]

So the thread title was just meant to get our attention?
Cause last time I checked "atheist" didn´t mean "a guy who holds no beliefs".

True, current definitions leave out "guy."

 

[quatona]

True, current definitions leave out "guy."

If I replace it with "person" - would that help you not to miss the actual point?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that some atheists are opposed to "belief in god" a priori. In other words, God may not be impossible (a self contradicion, which would really rule God out) but they dont see God as necessary either, and regard all potential experience (i.e. an a posteriori, synthetically defined God experienced in life) as inadequate.

Yet they are usually falliblists, all the same. So they believe that they may be mistaken, but the odds seemingly always fall in favour of skepticism. That seems quite odd. In all possible worlds (scenarios) the rational person would be skeptical, no matter what the empirical experience.

Now someones going to jump in and ask "Where, then, should I draw the line?" Probably because they havent thought it through for themselves?

If you are an a priori skeptic, please respond. Is ist a matter of epistemic axioms and "methodological naturalism" etc? If you are not an a priori skeptic, then where do you draw the line (how high is the bar where you would change your opinion?).

I think Kant believed faith and metaphysics were a priori synthetic propositions.

Also, what about water shortage, could Jesus be the living waters (or is that the spirit)?

 

[SkyWriting]

If I replace it with "person" - would that help you not to miss the actual point?

Evidently you still haven't check the definition. It's right there.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is a 0.5% chance (subjectively assessed) that God exists - and I think Sam Harris holds this belief - a form of theism?

 

[quatona]

Evidently you still haven't check the definition. It's right there.

Well, show me the definition that says "atheist: a person who holds no beliefs".

 

[Wryetui]

Strike one!

Theology is studied through reading. It isn't about being "closer to God". It's about understanding the arguments that purport to lead to the rational conclusion that a God of such-and-such characteristics exists.

The Wikipedia entry's intro is reasonably accurate:

Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious ideas...

You have shot your credibility out of the water. You don't even know what theology is.



Strike two!

I don't have to have done any such thing. All I have to do is lack belief in any God concept. Sure I have encountered a few, but study and refutation aren't required to lack belief. I have never bothered to build a case to refute the existence of Big Foot, but I still don't believe in the existence of Big Foot.



Strike three!

I would only be an atheist "out of ignorance" if none of my God-concepts were reasonably accurate. You don't know that this is the case.



I never said that, did I?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Obviously you know nothing about Orthodoxy. Theology isn't the study of anything at all, that's what the Western atheism is all about, study and more study, that's why the Western christianity is dying and that's why Orthodoxy is alive like in the first centuries. Theology isn't made through reason, reason is the tool of the pagans, inherited from the so called "classical" Rome and Greece, christian and real theology is made through THEORIA, and what is that? It is firstly katharsis, purification of the mind and body, and then through the hesychast prayer, a theologically correct prayer which seeks to draw us closer to God, to make our communion so strong that we can see the the uncreated light of God, like the light of the Tabor. Only the pure in heart shall see God and it is the dogmas of the Church, which were revealed to the Fathers, i.e. to those who are pure in heart. And what are the dogmas of the Church? They are the revelations of God about Himself, given to man to express in human language. For behold, Thou hast loved truth; the hidden and secret things of Thy wisdom hast Thou revealed to me (Ps. 50, 8). Let me explain it:

Speculative theology = Philosophy and Scholasticism vs. Empirical theology = Theoria:

Eastern theologians assert that Christianity is the truth; that Christianity is in essence the one true way to know the true God who is the origin and originator of all things (seen and unseen, knowable and unknowable). Christianity is the apodictic truth, in contrast to the dialectic, dianoia or rationalised knowledge which is the arrived at truth by way of philosophical speculation.

All other attempts by humanity, though containing some degree of truth will ultimately fail in their reconciliation between humanity and its source of existence and or being (called the studies of ontology, metaphysics). One's religion must provide for the whole person (the soul), their spiritual needs most importantly. In the approach to God the East considers philosophy but one form or tool that can do much to bring one closer to God but falls short at completeness in this task.

Vladimir Lossky, a noted modern Eastern Orthodox theologian, argues the difference in East and West is due to the Roman Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and its outgrowth, scholasticism) rather than the mystical, actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Roman Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky argues that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have become "different men". Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides and Metropolitan Hierotheos say the same. Vladimir Lossky expressed this as "Revelation sets an abyss between the truth which it declares and the truths which can be discovered by philosophical speculation.

This same sentiment was also expressed by the early Slavophile movements in the works of Ivan Kireevsky and Aleksey Khomyakov. The Slavophiles sought reconciliation with all various forms of Christianity as can be seen in the works of its most famous proponent Vladimir Solovyov. Theoria here is something more than simply a theological position. In Eastern Orthodoxy theoria was and is what established for the early church fathers the validation of Christianity and the ecclesiastical faith in God as a mystical (in the modern sense of the word) relationship between God and humanity that culminated into theosis.

So theology isn't about studying, you can be a theologian without even knowing how to write, because not the one who is intellectually superior draws closer to God, but the one who purified himself from sin and passions.

So, let's make this clear:

"Theology", for Western Christianity and for atheism (which was assumed from western christianity) is studying about God and speculating about Him, the western "theologian" is a scholastic one.

Theology, for Orthodox Christianity, is puryfing oneself from sin, passions and then praying constantly in order for God to reveal Himself for that who is pure in heart enough.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Obviously you know nothing about Orthodoxy. Theology isn't the study of anything at all, that's what the Western atheism is all about, study and more study, that's why the Western christianity is dying and that's why Orthodoxy is alive like in the first centuries. Theology isn't made through reason, reason is the tool of the pagans, inherited from the so called "classical" Rome and Greece, christian and real theology is made through THEORIA, and what is that? It is firstly katharsis, purification of the mind and body, and then through the hesychast prayer, a theologically correct prayer which seeks to draw us closer to God, to make our communion so strong that we can see the the uncreated light of God, like the light of the Tabor. Only the pure in heart shall see God and it is the dogmas of the Church, which were revealed to the Fathers, i.e. to those who are pure in heart. And what are the dogmas of the Church? They are the revelations of God about Himself, given to man to express in human language. For behold, Thou hast loved truth; the hidden and secret things of Thy wisdom hast Thou revealed to me (Ps. 50, 8). Let me explain it:

Speculative theology = Philosophy and Scholasticism vs. Empirical theology = Theoria:

Eastern theologians assert that Christianity is the truth; that Christianity is in essence the one true way to know the true God who is the origin and originator of all things (seen and unseen, knowable and unknowable). Christianity is the apodictic truth, in contrast to the dialectic, dianoia or rationalised knowledge which is the arrived at truth by way of philosophical speculation.

All other attempts by humanity, though containing some degree of truth will ultimately fail in their reconciliation between humanity and its source of existence and or being (called the studies of ontology, metaphysics). One's religion must provide for the whole person (the soul), their spiritual needs most importantly. In the approach to God the East considers philosophy but one form or tool that can do much to bring one closer to God but falls short at completeness in this task.

Vladimir Lossky, a noted modern Eastern Orthodox theologian, argues the difference in East and West is due to the Roman Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and its outgrowth, scholasticism) rather than the mystical, actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Roman Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky argues that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have become "different men". Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides and Metropolitan Hierotheos say the same. Vladimir Lossky expressed this as "Revelation sets an abyss between the truth which it declares and the truths which can be discovered by philosophical speculation.

This same sentiment was also expressed by the early Slavophile movements in the works of Ivan Kireevsky and Aleksey Khomyakov. The Slavophiles sought reconciliation with all various forms of Christianity as can be seen in the works of its most famous proponent Vladimir Solovyov. Theoria here is something more than simply a theological position. In Eastern Orthodoxy theoria was and is what established for the early church fathers the validation of Christianity and the ecclesiastical faith in God as a mystical (in the modern sense of the word) relationship between God and humanity that culminated into theosis.

So theology isn't about studying, you can be a theologian without even knowing how to write, because not the one who is intellectually superior draws closer to God, but the one who purified himself from sin and passions.

So, let's make this clear:

"Theology", for Western Christianity and for atheism (which was assumed from western christianity) is studying about God and speculating about Him, the western "theologian" is a scholastic one.

Theology, for Orthodox Christianity, is puryfing oneself from sin, passions and then praying constantly in order for God to reveal Himself for that who is pure in heart enough.

Seems deeply anti-intellectual.

 

[Wryetui]

Seems deeply anti-intellectual.

The same as the position in the West which seems deeply anti-spiritual. Let me explain it, Orthodoxy puts reason and intellect in their place, a fairly secondary place, and why is that? Because our intellect is something created, and through it we cannot discover God since our reason is limited and God is transcendent, so, in order to believe in and find God, Orthodoxy follows the empirical way, the way of experiencing. The same way the apostles saw Jesus's uncreated light at Tabor, the same way the orthodox try to purify ourselves enough in order to see it, through deep prayer. It's not a secret or some form of weird practice, even Jesus clearly says it: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

I know this seems odd for someone in the West because of their dependence on reason, logic and intellect, but in order to enter in the sacred space of apophatic theology, of actually seeing God through theoria one must learn to make their reason, logic and intellect, subordinate to their hearts.

 

[Freodin]

So... the difference between western and eastern "theology" is...

... making stuff up and then justifying it with making up arguments ...
vs.
... making stuff up and then justifying it with making up rituals.

I really can't understand how people can still be atheists when confronted with such sophisticated means to get to know God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The same as the position in the West which seems deeply anti-spiritual. Let me explain it, Orthodoxy puts reason and intellect in their place, a fairly secondary place, and why is that? Because our intellect is something created, and through it we cannot discover God since our reason is limited and God is transcendent, so, in order to believe in and find God, Orthodoxy follows the empirical way, the way of experiencing. The same way the apostles saw Jesus's uncreated light at Tabor, the same way the orthodox try to purify ourselves enough in order to see it, through deep prayer. It's not a secret or some form of weird practice, even Jesus clearly says it: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

I know this seems odd for someone in the West because of their dependence on reason, logic and intellect, but in order to enter in the sacred space of apophatic theology, of actually seeing God through theoria one must learn to make their reason, logic and intellect, subordinate to their hearts.

How is that different from Western Christianity? Have you read any of William Lane Craig's work? Have you read Luther's views on the relationship between faith and reason?

 

[Wryetui]

It is much different from Western Christianity than the sky is different from the earth. To resume that to you:

Western Christianity: using autonomous human reason to explain and speculate things of God.

Eastern Orthodoxy: puryfing your heart and praying constantly through hesychasm in order to God reveal Himself and His "secrets" to you.

 

[Wryetui]

So... the difference between western and eastern "theology" is...

... making stuff up and then justifying it with making up arguments ...
vs.
... making stuff up and then justifying it with making up rituals.

I really can't understand how people can still be atheists when confronted with such sophisticated means to get to know God.

How is that different from Western Christianity? Have you read any of William Lane Craig's work? Have you read Luther's views on the relationship between faith and reason?

Your airs of superiority won't have any effect on the discussion, really. I doubt you even know what you are talking about, I doubt you ever read a book about it, not to talk practiced it so you can only speculate with your own limited reason about what others made.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your airs of superiority won't have any effect on the discussion, really. I doubt you even know what you are talking about, I doubt you ever read a book about it, not to talk practiced it so you can only speculate with your own limited reason about what others made.

What a smug comment.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is much different from Western Christianity than the sky is different from the earth. To resume that to you:

Western Christianity: using autonomous human reason to explain and speculate things of God.

Eastern Orthodoxy: puryfing your heart and praying constantly through hesychasm in order to God reveal Himself and His "secrets" to you.

I'll take that as a no, you haven't read Craig or Luther.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

This seems to be the main opposition to belief in God.
There is usually a person or a specific incident that
offended the "non believer" and they insist that
everyone else should also embody their hate against
what they considered to be "holy" to them.

Right. I'm sure you have an immense body of evidence to support this assertion. Let's see you produce it.

 

[Freodin]

Your airs of superiority won't have any effect on the discussion, really. I doubt you even know what you are talking about, I doubt you ever read a book about it, not to talk practiced it so you can only speculate with your own limited reason about what others made.

So... when faced with people asking you for "reason" in regard to your position, you retreat to your "purify your heart and pray" assertions. And when you have to justify that, you revert to "you haven't even read a book about it - your limited reason does offer nothing for the discussion". And all that evading while deriding your opposite. Impressive!

Well, if you really think that this kind of arrogance is a sign of a "pure heart"... I am glad I don't have it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Obviously you know nothing about Orthodoxy.

Yes, I admit I know little about Orthodoxy.

Theology isn't the study of anything at all

ology
a subject of study; a branch of knowledge.

I find that choice of word to describe something that isn't a study rather confusing. It seems that we aren't using the word to mean even remotely the same thing. I think that we should just stop here.

I'm relieved to be so "pagan". I can't imagine the hell of renouncing reason.


eudaimonia,

Mark