# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  A discourse on Atheism (not a religious debate)

## Charles Darnay

PREFACE:
This is not a religious debate, nor is it meant to be. Please do not make it one. I mean this as a philosophic discourse wherein the opinions of all are encouraged/welcome.

PREAMBLE:
Whether you personally believe it or not, I think you can agree that Atheism is generally viewed as a reactionary idea: against Theism. I think we can also say without much debate that “reactionary ideas qua reactionary ideas” are doomed to failure. Example: The Protestant Reformation was successful not because Luther et al said “we hate Catholics, Catholics suck, go away” but because they said “here is what we believe in – here are my points.” Whereas the Counter-Reformation did not succeed outside of the world of art because it existed only as a reactionary idea.
__________________________________________________ _

So the question is: does Atheism (as it is generally viewed) exist as anything but a reactionary idea? Could it? I suppose the first issue is that Atheism is still in the stage that 16th century Protestants were in: where many groups are using the idea to suit themselves as they see it. I have seen the Satre-esque Atheist brand, the “using evolutionary theory as the cornerstone of belief” Atheist brand, and the revival of Renaissance Humanism removed from any context of God Atheist brand – the first focusing on independent power, the second focusing on the physical world, the third as spiritual as any “religion”. But the only thing that unifies these groups (and I’m sure there are more) is that initial reactionary idea.
So………I want to know: if you are an Atheist, what are your “positive points” – meaning points that go beyond reactionary ideas. And for theists out there – do you see any points in Atheism beyond the reactionary ideas? Should there be “the Atheist Bible/manifesto/whatever” or will this inevitably create the same problems that spawned it in the first place? Is Atheism doomed to be a reactionary idea until something completely different comes to take it up?

----------


## cafolini

> PREFACE:
> This is not a religious debate, nor is it meant to be. Please do not make it one. I mean this as a philosophic discourse wherein the opinions of all are encouraged/welcome.
> 
> PREAMBLE:
> Whether you personally believe it or not, I think you can agree that Atheism is generally viewed as a reactionary idea: against Theism. I think we can also say without much debate that “reactionary ideas qua reactionary ideas” are doomed to failure. Example: The Protestant Reformation was successful not because Luther et al said “we hate Catholics, Catholics suck, go away” but because they said “here is what we believe in – here are my points.” Whereas the Counter-Reformation did not succeed outside of the world of art because it existed only as a reactionary idea.
> __________________________________________________ _
> 
> So the question is: does Atheism (as it is generally viewed) exist as anything but a reactionary idea? Could it? I suppose the first issue is that Atheism is still in the stage that 16th century Protestants were in: where many groups are using the idea to suit themselves as they see it. I have seen the Satre-esque Atheist brand, the “using evolutionary theory as the cornerstone of belief” Atheist brand, and the revival of Renaissance Humanism removed from any context of God Atheist brand – the first focusing on independent power, the second focusing on the physical world, the third as spiritual as any “religion”. But the only thing that unifies these groups (and I’m sure there are more) is that initial reactionary idea.
> So………I want to know: if you are an Atheist, what are your “positive points” – meaning points that go beyond reactionary ideas. And for theists out there – do you see any points in Atheism beyond the reactionary ideas? Should there be “the Atheist Bible/manifesto/whatever” or will this inevitably create the same problems that spawned it in the first place? Is Atheism doomed to be a reactionary idea until something completely different comes to take it up?


There is no question that atheism is a reactionary idea. But I think it is past tense and fully overcome. What it proposes at the root is precisely what cannot be sustained independently apart from the entanglement with religion.
In mentioning the protestant revolution there was not much reaction on the part of the Lutherans. The latter found a way to overcome slavery (the Roman yoke and work duties) by postulating grace vs. work. It was a step forward in the evolution of religion in the sense that as they postulated it (in the struggle for power) only God could save anyone, for whatever reason, but by grace alone. The minister no longer had a direct connection to the will of God (acted more as a facilitator to the understanding of the books, and few sacraments were left standing).
Going forward to the situation of today of both Protestantism and Atheism, the evolutionary current is in the hands of science: It is no longer justified to confront humanistic studies with scientific studies. Humanity in its two dimensions has been overcome and we move on. We can no longer discuss humanism or anything related, like philosophy, religion, atheism, etc. but within a historical perspective. Of course the inertia of the cultural entanglements will go on with Christianity as much as with any other form of belief system, but it will never go back to be of gobal consequence.

----------


## Darcy88

I don't think atheism is all that reactionary. To my mind its just a side-effect of the scientific revolution. Empiricism rose to the fore and for many people the belief in God was discarded as a result. Rather than atheism being necessarily characterized as something against God, against belief, you could instead view it as a mind-set that's pro-science, pro-empiricism. For instance I see a biblical literalist first and foremost as someone who is affirming the literal truth of the bible, not as someone who is against science before all else.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I don't think atheism is all that reactionary. To my mind its just a side-effect of the scientific revolution. Empiricism rose to the fore and for many people the belief in God was discarded as a result. Rather than atheism being necessarily characterized as something against God, against belief, you could instead view it as a mind-set that's pro-science, pro-empiricism. For instance I see a biblical literalist first and foremost as someone who is affirming the literal truth of the bible, not as someone who is against science before all else.


I personally see the "Science revolution" as reactionary. Since there is much relied on theories and not empiricism at all. It seems that there is more theorizing than observing.

----------


## cafolini

> I don't think atheism is all that reactionary. To my mind its just a side-effect of the scientific revolution. Empiricism rose to the fore and for many people the belief in God was discarded as a result. Rather than atheism being necessarily characterized as something against God, against belief, you could instead view it as a mind-set that's pro-science, pro-empiricism. For instance I see a biblical literalist first and foremost as someone who is affirming the literal truth of the bible, not as someone who is against science before all else.


The point, Darcy, is that anything pro-science does no longer need any defense or philosophical consideration. Of course you will always have the quackers postulating science as compatible with religion. It's futile to respond to such aberrations. One of the funny things of late was a group trying to prove scientifically that the Jews crossed the Red Sea because God parted the waters with high winds that mysteriously did not carry the Jews away as they crossed. Then God stops the wind and the Red Sea traps the persecuting Egyptian army. And there are all kinds of maniacs thinking they are using science. Let them be. They are inoffensive. And they are extremely funny when you think about it.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I'll answer by saying what I mean when I say I'm an atheist. I don't believe there is a God. This doesn't mean I don't think it's possible--I just don't know, and from what I've seen, I'm inclined to think there is no God. I used to say I'm agnostic (and sometimes still do because it seems so much less pot-stirring), but that really isn't right. It is partly reactionary, I guess, since I tried to believe in God and couldn't. 

I'll also say this: I follow no atheist manifesto/bible. I have my own definition that happens to be along the lines of many other, but not all, atheists. 

I also say I'm anti-religious, which is different than being atheist, because this has nothing to do with God. This means I'm against organized religions, plain and simple. Now this is _completely_ reactzionary.

----------


## Jack of Hearts

> Whether you personally believe it or not, I think you can agree that Atheism is generally viewed as a reactionary idea: against Theism.


This reader assumes you made this claim because there seems to be monotheism and polytheism throughout human history. And then, about 700 BC comes Thales who proposes an arche- apparently he just wasn't content to think that the explanation "Gods did it!" was good enough to account for everything anymore. 

And a tenet of secular humanism is that neither should you. So there's bias in the rhetoric. Why not call it 'evolutionary' instead of 'reactionary' (haha, see, we can have fun with it); evolutionary in the sense that, as human kind develops, we are destined to be Godless (and if you think there's no pattern that could show this, consider how religion in the western world has dwindled since Descartes published _Meditations on First Philosophy_).

But it's easy to draw the conclusion that Atheism is reactionary because religion/magic/etc was here first. Maybe these things were just the best explanations people had at the time. But the more people advance themselves in terms of critical thinking, science and philosophy, the more it's out with the old and in with the new.

It's easy to call Atheism reactionary because a lot of people who practice it _are, themselves, reacting to anger about the world around them._ This reader is not an atheist, but he knows a few. And they're mostly mad at either 'being lied to' about the existence of a deity/authenticity of a holy book, or they're pissed that other people are sheeplike (which probably grounds itself in something personal as well) or 'holding back advancement of mankind', etc. Some people are just self-righteous, regardless of any beliefs. Atheism is becoming more and more affiliated with these things.

So, this reader thinks atheism itself isn't inherently a reaction to anything, it's more of an evolution of mankind. It's just some of the people who practice it that are reactionary.





J

----------


## Charles Darnay

The reason I made the claim was to stress the "generally viewed" part. While I do not disagree with your distinction of "evolutionary" over "reactionary" - I don't think it's a popular view (maybe it should be)....

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Be careful, guys. If this thread gets too interesting it will surely be locked.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> I used to say I'm agnostic (and sometimes still do because it seems so much less pot-stirring), but that really isn't right.



I don't even define myself as _anything_ anymore. If anyone asks me what my religious beliefs are, I'll usually tell them that I'm "devoutly apathetic." If you simply say that you're "agnostic" or "apathetic," some people see that as a conversion invitation, so I like to throw the term "devout" in there to let them know that I don't want to hear it (and sometimes I'll tell them that I worship the snake god Apophis just to **** with people). 




> I also say I'm anti-religious, which is different than being atheist, because this has nothing to do with God. This means I'm against organized religions, plain and simple.


Ditto. I'll keep it off the boards, but I'm not ashamed to admit it.

----------


## Theunderground

I think this is a very astute distinction. I myself was concerned that most movements are intially reactionary (which is fine.) but then over time fail to throw away this reactionary mood. I mean how pitiful to define oneself by either for or against god. I dont want to know what you are against,what are you for? This is why atheism,humanism,naturalism and satanism suffer by virtue of their negativity and their acccruing of dogmas,creeds and frozen defintions over time. First and foremost i define myself by what i stand for,what are my values,what i am opposed to (though important.) is somewhat secondary.And in fact what is more important than defining or talking is 'doing your values',so to speak.
I myself follow my emotions,my personal insight,my values and my human apsirations,i feel that is enough to define myself. I am oppsed to whatever stops me from fulfilling my aspirations but i focus on the positive not the negative.

----------


## YesNo

Most people are atheists with respect to specific Gods. If none come to mind, try Zeus. More earnestly, Christians are atheists with respect to Allah. Jews and Muslims are atheists with respect to Jesus. Other people are atheists with respect to all three of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic Gods.

Sometimes these atheists promote other Gods or alternative philosophies instead. When they do, they are no longer reactionaries, because they now have something positive to support.

The atheists I hear on these forums seem primarily opposed to all three of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic Gods, but they haven't found anything to promote in their place. The arguments they have with Christians are their way of breaking away from the religious culture they were born into.

Some will become Buddhists, because they hear Buddhists worship no God. Others will start practicing yoga or some other meditative or self-help discipline sometimes influenced by people such as Deepak Chopra. Consciousness becomes the God-replacement and mindfulness the worship. Somewhere in this category is where I would be.

Others will try to use science as a justification for their atheism and reject in theory the existence of any kind of God and generally insist that consciousness is derivative from matter-energy rather than the other way around. This would be the atheism that I disagree with. The main reason I reject this is because the science that would justify such atheism had its high point around the 1800s and I see it being replaced.

----------


## Darcy88

My first philosophy professor said he takes issue with most self-proclaimed agnostics. He says the word denotes not one who is not ultimately assured of either the existence or non existence of God, but, rather, someone who sees the evidence as 50/50, equal on both sides and pointing to neither conclusion.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> My first philosophy professor said he takes issue with most self-proclaimed agnostics. He says the word denotes not one who is not ultimately assured of either the existence or not existence of God, but, rather, someone who sees the evidence as 50/50, equal on both sides and pointing to neither conclusion.


I agree with this sentiment, though I would not phrase it in this way. Agnosticism has always struck as "I don't know enough and so I don't want to exert my own opinion" - which in certain cases is fine, but when dealing with a belief system I think it's better to take the time to know where you stand. This does not mean you have to be either monotheist/atheist - you could believe in any number of things, but it is worth it to have a belief.

(Of course, this applies solely to spirituality and not the concept of organized religions. As has been stated, to be "against god" is different than "against religion"

----------


## Darcy88

Also, being an atheist doesn't mean that one is necessarily against the idea of God. I wish there was a God. Like Sarte I feel in my heart a void where God ought to be. I've tried to believe. Just can't do it. I've read too much Nietzsche and have always been a skeptic to the core. If there's a God I fail to see his reasoning in making faith so insurmountable a challenge, in situating himself beyond this unbridgable gulf. It smacks of indifference.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> I think the general view (from a Christian pov) of an atheist family sitting down to dinner is a lot like the dinner scene from American Beauty. Or rather:
> 
> Pa: so did you here ---
> 
> Son: no dad! you're wrong!
> 
> Daughter: no you're wrong stupid.
> 
> 
> And you see, there's no Bible to immediately turn to so you can't resolve the debate by looking it up.


That's one of the most obtuse things I have read. I don't ever fight at the dinner table. We smile, we thank each other for all of the help with the meal. If we had a disagreement we would settle it nonviolently because we care for each other. If your religion makes you suspect people of being evil to the people they love, without anything to support that idea, your religion breeds hate and distrust without cause.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> That's one of the most obtuse things I have read. I don't ever fight at the dinner table. We smile, we thank each other for all of the help with the meal. If we had a disagreement we would settle it nonviolently because we care for each other. If your religion makes you suspect people of being evil to the people they love, without anything to support that idea, your religion breeds hate and distrust without cause.


Varenne, that is one of the most obtuse things that I have ever read as well, and it's totally not true. Since I actually am a Christian, I can tell you my point of view, that I think an atheist family is much like a Christian family sitting at the dinner table. We don't think about such things. I'm not even sure why someone would make up something about someone else's point of view. It would be a good thing if we stopped stereotyping each other so much...and that goes for both sides.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Varenne, that is one of the most obtuse things that I have ever read as well, and it's totally not true. Since I actually am a Christian, I can tell you my point of view, that I think an atheist family is much like a Christian family sitting at the dinner table. We don't think about such things. I'm not even sure why someone would make up something about someone else's point of view. It would be a good thing if we stopped stereotyping each other so much...and that goes for both sides.


Thank you, Bien. That is appreciated.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

I think Charles was making a joke. . . .

----------


## Calidore

I think so also. Scans like satire.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Haha. Usually I pick up on that type of thing. It's pretty funny either way.

----------


## cafolini

> I think the general view (from a Christian pov) of an atheist family sitting down to dinner is a lot like the dinner scene from American Beauty. Or rather:
> 
> Pa: so did you here ---
> 
> Son: no dad! you're wrong!
> 
> Daughter: no you're wrong stupid.
> 
> 
> And you see, there's no Bible to immediately turn to so you can't resolve the debate by looking it up.


What you mean, Charles? Don't they have the collection of Atlantic Magazine and many others? Take a look in Wiki for a list of atheist authors. Never mind. Funny point.

----------


## cafolini

Look at some of the things Atheists bibled inconspicuously, little by little. And there are many more volumes to look up.

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer. 

Religions are like pills, which must be swallowed whole without chewing. 

Atheists will celebrate life, while you’re in church celebrating death. 

The Bible – A Fairytale book of rules brainwashing millions. Obliviously used to help create war, kill, hate, judge and discriminate.

Most religions prophecy the end of the world and then consistently work together to ensure that these prophecies come true. 

Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea. 

Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power but absolute power is corrupt only in the hands of the absolutely faithful. 

Since the Bible and the church are obviously mistaken in telling us where we came from, how can we trust them to tell us where we are going? 

Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the Creator of human intelligence.

If all the Christians who have called other Christians “not really a Christian” were to vanish, there’d be no Christians left. 

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish. 

I have no need for religion, I have a conscience.

The finality of death is the coldest truth one must face. Religion makes the perfect distraction. 

Jesus hardly made the greatest sacrifice. He knew he would be resurrected anyway. 

On the first day, man created God. 

A believer states everything must have a creator but fail to say how he was created. 

The world holds two classes of men – intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.

----------


## Climacus

> Apparently good speech. But how do you know they have methaphysics or epistemology. Of the three things you mentioned the only one you can be sure they have is merely some form of morality, twisted or otherwise. Morality is intrinsic, residing in the unavoidable sense of good and bad. But methaphysics and epistemology are not realities for everyone, and nowadays are museum pieces archived scientifically.


Like everything else I remember you saying about philosophy, this is wide of the mark. By the time a person has reached the level of intellectual maturity that allows them to say Im a theist or Im an atheist, they will have developed both a metaphysic and an epistemology, of some sort. They may be merely nascent, they may be ill-articulated, they may be incoherent, but theyll be there. (God exists or God doesnt exist are already metaphysical statements.) Only a true agnostic or a pyrrhonistic doubter can lack these things. Example: Take a hypothetical atheist that is also a materialist. She believes that only material things exist. That is her metaphysic. She also believes that we can know about things only sensibly  that is, through our senses. That is her epistemology.

----------


## cafolini

> Like everything else I remember you saying about philosophy, this is wide of the mark. By the time a person has reached the level of intellectual maturity that allows them to say “I’m a theist” or “I’m an atheist,” they will have developed both a metaphysic and an epistemology, of some sort. They may be merely nascent, they may be ill-articulated, they may be incoherent, but they’ll be there. (“God exists” or “God doesn’t exist” are already metaphysical statements.) Only a true agnostic or a pyrrhonistic doubter can lack these things. Example: Take a hypothetical atheist that is also a materialist. She believes that only material things exist. That is her metaphysic. She also believes that we can know about things only sensibly – that is, through our senses. That is her epistemology.


Well, metaphysics and epistemology are not by themselves in the museum. Have fun, champ.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Like everything else I remember you saying about philosophy, this is wide of the mark. By the time a person has reached the level of intellectual maturity that allows them to say Im a theist or Im an atheist, they will have developed both a metaphysic and an epistemology, of some sort. They may be merely nascent, they may be ill-articulated, they may be incoherent, but theyll be there. (God exists or God doesnt exist are already metaphysical statements.) Only a true agnostic or a pyrrhonistic doubter can lack these things. Example: Take a hypothetical atheist that is also a materialist. She believes that only material things exist. That is her metaphysic. She also believes that we can know about things only sensibly  that is, through our senses. That is her epistemology.


"She" doesn't have to believe that only material things exist in order to observe the material world and not observe the metaphysical. How do you determine what exists and what doesn't, Climacus? It makes sense to observe the observable, does it not?

----------


## Charles Darnay

> I think Charles was making a joke. . . .


ca c'est correct.


And Bien, I did mean to stress "general" - as, no not everyone subscribes to this, but there is a view I have seen expressed regarding atheists time and time again that: because the foundation of atheism is based on deconstructionism, atheists will jump into an argument about anything - taken to a satirical point: about absolutely nothing.

----------


## cafolini

> ca c'est correct.
> 
> 
> And Bien, I did mean to stress "general" - as, no not everyone subscribes to this, but there is a view I have seen expressed regarding atheists time and time again that: because the foundation of atheism is based on deconstructionism, atheists will jump into an argument about anything - taken to a satirical point: about absolutely nothing.


May I modify your last phrase? "about absolutely nothing of consequence."

Atheists existed long before Derrida. But they were persecuted. Naturally, when they found expression, they overfed talking to walls. 
We have come such a long ways in science that now the three stooges of history, namely the theist, the atheist and the agnostic have been placed together with humanity/inhumanity in a confortable museum awaiting recycling. And they are not coming back as anything of consequence.

----------


## Charles Darnay

> May I modify your last phrase? "about absolutely nothing of consequence."
> 
> Atheists existed long before Derrida. But they were persecuted. Naturally, when they found expression, they overfed talking to walls. 
> We have come such a long ways in science that now the three stooges of history, namely the theist, the atheist and the agnostic have been placed together with humanity/inhumanity in a confortable museum awaiting recycling. And they are not coming back as anything of consequence.


Yeah, I don't know why the Farrelly Brothers are re-making 3 Stooges either....you know it will be bad.

----------


## Ecurb

> Yeah, I don't know why the Farrelly Brothers are re-making 3 Stooges either....you know it will be bad.


If it is bad, then it may be an accurate remake of the work of a trio of the worst comedians of all time.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> ca c'est correct.
> 
> 
> And Bien, I did mean to stress "general" - as, no not everyone subscribes to this, but there is a view I have seen expressed regarding atheists time and time again that: because the foundation of atheism is based on deconstructionism, atheists will jump into an argument about anything - taken to a satirical point: about absolutely nothing.


I think that you are noting a small minority of "pious" Christians, or even militant Christians, for there are those fundamentalist Christians out there that do not want anyone believing any different than they themselves. There are good people out there in both camps, but unfortunately we like to label everyone according to the extremists out there.

I've been labeled both pious and fundamentalist, but as far as I know, I don't think that I am either. I'm just a Christian, and I care about the well-being of all my fellow humans.

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> I've been labeled both pious and fundamentalist,


And both in the same sentence, no less.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Climacus

> Well, metaphysics and epistemology are not by themselves in the museum. Have fun, champ.


Metaphysics and epistemology are branches of philosophy. How can the trunk be long-dead and decomposing while the branches are alive and flourishing? Why don't you just quit with the farcical "philosophy is dead" posturing. You're only making yourself sound ill-informed and under-educated.

----------


## cafolini

> Metaphysics and epistemology are branches of philosophy. How can the trunk be long-dead and decomposing while the branches are alive and flourishing? Why don't you just quit with the farcical "philosophy is dead" posturing. You're only making yourself sound ill-informed and under-educated.


Definitely under-educated. What a relief it is! Ha!

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Metaphysics and epistemology are branches of philosophy. How can the trunk be long-dead and decomposing while the branches are alive and flourishing? Why don't you just quit with the farcical "philosophy is dead" posturing. You're only making yourself sound ill-informed and under-educated.


What do you expect from someone who can't tell the difference between his dissected bug collection and a Shakespeare sonnet?  :Biggrin:

----------


## russellb

I'm not sure that atheism could ever have any 'positive points' It is simply the belief that God does not exist. This belief may be a feature of a 'positive' system of ideas as in humanist thinking,say, but in and of itself it is essentially just the negation of a specific assertion. A religous person may well say atheism negates morality too. An atheist may accept this and so here there is i suppose a 'positive point' in the liberation from the constraints of virtue. But such a position is not essential to atheism in as much as many atheists would accept the existence of morality and probably argue that their atheism has no bearing on this. An atheist might infer the meaningless or indeed richness of their existence from their atheism but could these ever be essential features? Really the question is 'is atheism the belief that God does not exist and nothing more?'
Or does it have necessary implications that would entail something 'positive' something more than just its obvious negation?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I don't know, Russell, but I enjoy being an atheist. I enjoy freedom from religion.  :Smile:

----------


## russellb

i guess what you are saying Varenne is that there may be more to atheism than simply denying the existence of god and that it frees one from the strictures of religion. However, i would say that in modern liberal theology there is a great emphasis on freedom and autonomy. The unitarian church speaks of 'building your own theology, and this can include embracing atheism. Here at least atheism and religion are not incompatible.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Good points. Every individual is different. I became an atheist during college (though I was always skeptical of stories in a sort of telephone game from ancient peoples), mainly while studying the anatomy of the brain. Fascinating stuff. I could never personally join any religion. For me, my atheism does prevent it. I think of it as being aware that I haven't unlocked all of the answers to the questions of the universe and existing. If there are other people who agree with me, I still don't think it can be called a religion. There aren't specific rules or groups that I adhere and belong to. I'm an earthling. Is that a religion? The good of it all for me is that knowing I only have one life to live (based on the only physical information I have), makes me want to live my life well and without injury to other persons. I can't say how atheism effects other people.

----------


## russellb

i think there is so much about this universe that we don't understand but there is no terminology for this. Atheist agnostic theist all define attitudes towards GOd. I would like a term that pertained to the sheer mystery of it all. As it is i can be pretty fluid in my outlook and I waver somewhere or other around the three positions

----------


## cafolini

Okay. Now to business. Religion will never die. But the power of religion over the state has been dead for many decades. So what's the point in endless discussions on this boring issue, be it atheist, theist or agnostic. Let's move on to where the action is: freedom of choice.

----------


## Paulclem

> i think there is so much about this universe that we don't understand but there is no terminology for this. Atheist agnostic theist all define attitudes towards GOd. I would like a term that pertained to the sheer mystery of it all. As it is i can be pretty fluid in my outlook and I waver somewhere or other around the three positions


I have heard God referred to as "The Ground Of Being", - it was theologian Paul Tillich. (Just looked it up). 

he also says:

Philosophy formulates the questions implied in human existence, and theology formulates the answers implied in divine self-manifestation under the guidance of the questions implied in human existence. This is a circle which drives man to a point where question and answer are not separated. This point, however, is not a moment in time 

If I were Christian, it would be a more appealing approach than the God, Eternal Father Figure which seems an unsophisticated view of a proposed ultimate being.

----------


## russellb

It occurred to me that many Christians might think that viewing God as 'the ground of being' is to think of 'Him' in rather impersonal terms. Perhaps the psychological appeal of Christianity (and a reason for its historical success) is due to the idea of a personal (and parental) God in heaven. However psychological accounts of religion can tend to be stereotyped We could even say that each 'faith' is different and that say Tillich's is of a more intellectual variety. What is suitable for one person makes little sense to someone else. But then i guess this goes back to psychological generalizaions,,.

----------


## cafolini

> I have heard God referred to as "The Ground Of Being", - it was theologian Paul Tillich. (Just looked it up). 
> 
> he also says:
> 
> Philosophy formulates the questions implied in human existence, and theology formulates the answers implied in divine self-manifestation under the guidance of the questions implied in human existence. This is a circle which drives man to a point where question and answer are not separated. This point, however, is not a moment in time 
> 
> If I were Christian, it would be a more appealing approach than the God, Eternal Father Figure which seems an unsophisticated view of a proposed ultimate being.


This is old hat. The purpose of filosophy in ancient Greece was to produce an environ directed by the areopagus to generate ancient theology to finish with pagan mythology. Some of the philosophies that started with Thales and many of his friends already had marked bits of theology.

----------


## Darcy88

> This is old hat. The purpose of filosophy in ancient Greece was to produce an environ directed by the areopagus to generate ancient theology to finish with pagan mythology. Some of the philosophies that started with Thales and many of his friends already had marked bits of theology.


Thales was under the direction of the Aeropagus in Persian occupied Ionia long before the days of the Athenian Empire? This is interesting. Tell me more. I've never heard this before, this link between the Aeropagus and philosophy.

----------


## Paulclem

> This is old hat. The purpose of filosophy in ancient Greece was to produce an environ directed by the areopagus to generate ancient theology to finish with pagan mythology. Some of the philosophies that started with Thales and many of his friends already had marked bits of theology.


Yeah? Tell Paul Tillich - oh no sorry. He's dead.

----------


## russellb

Some people are atheists because they cannot get round the problem of evil. Then again some theists argue that we cannot spiritually develop in a universe without evil. Some atheists say there is no evidence. To which a theist might reply 'what more evidence do you want?' The question that occurs to me is do atheists and theists have, on a certain level, differently structured minds that determine how they think on the matter. One point of reply might be that a person or mind is not a monolithic entity and a person might continually slip from atheism to theism and back again. Or does this mean that conflicting structures may inhere in the same psyche?

----------


## russellb

Would like to add that if atheism is a mental structure there may be varieties that express the different ways in which an atheist can think. Of course they would share a fundamental feature ie non belief in God

----------


## russellb

Some people are atheists because they cannot get round the problem of evil. Then again some theists argue that we cannot spiritually develop in a universe without evil. Some atheists say there is no evidence. To which a theist might reply 'what more evidence do you want?' The question that occurs to me is do atheists and theists have, on a certain level, differently structured minds that determine how they think on the matter. One point of reply might be that a person or mind is not a monolithic entity and a person might continually slip from atheism to theism and back again. Or does this mean that conflicting structures may inhere in the same psyche?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

Russell, I'm an atheist. I will never be a theist.  :Smile:

----------

