Theism vs. Atheism

Great response. Yes, it is, as ARI noted, a mind thing and that is a life thing and has everything to do with our perception of life. If the mind is perplexed, life is perplexed. Spirituality is a "religious" interpretation that is, in fact, a condition of mind. But because it is within the realms of "religious structure" those independent minds, such as yours cannot relate to "humble", in that you, my friend, also need to have that freedom to achieve that peace of mind those of faith find in their belief's and they call that peace of mind "spirit". It's all the same. Peace of mind is the ultimate goal. They just achieve it through a different means. If you have a "pink unicorn" in your front yard and it is your belief to pet the head of that little pink sucker before you leave home and in my doing so will bring you peace, you never forget to pet it. Ha.

william

irl means "in real life", William, as in someone/something known outside of the internet. Which isn't to suggest that people we meet on the web aren't real, just that irl is a means of distinguishing people that we know off the web from those we know only online.

Anyway, back to the discussion. One thing that I find disturbing about your approach to this topic is that you seem to think atheism is more intelligent than theism. You continually praised the intellect of the, shall we say, thinking atheists, and even went so far as to list intellect as a reason for being atheist in your last post. If intelligence is something we all value, and most do, certainly on a forum such as this, then the automatic assumption from equating intellect to atheism is that atheism is superior to theism.

Yet you present yourself as a theist. Either you're just trying to be overly diplomatic to the perceived "other side" shall we say, or else you've got one very serious inferiority complex when it comes to atheists, perhaps stemming from those debates that you mentioned having with atheists who were condescending and insulting.

Unwillingness to accept the possibility of the unprovable is not more intelligent than the refusal to limit our beliefs solely on what we already have evidence for.

Thanks William,

Well, let's put it this way. I'm not a "theist" because I see no reason to believe. I don't see any rational or empirical support that strikes me as true; further, that life, love and the fellowship of others can be best appreciated in its precious, temporary/mortal state.

I'll be completely honest with you: I wish I did. I wish I did see some support that was worthy of that excitement of something greater! Oh wow, that'd rock! But if I'm to be honest with myself from my corner of the cosmos: its just not there enough to believe.

One thing, and this is a point where this issue gets stuck on constantly, and that's what differentiates between an atheistand an agnostic. I don't believe in any deities, so I get the former title. Could there be? Sure! Could this existence potentially, some day, be 'knowable"? Sure, I think so! Heck, I could peer out my window right now and perhaps see the almighty descending from the heavens to start the apocalypse.

Anyway, in a nutshell, that's where I'm at.

Thanks

Thank you so much for your input. This is what I need to hone up my communication skills. I really hate that it is "disturbing or upsetting to you" though. As I have said, I am neither Atheist or Theist as it relates to a "being" sitting on a throne making a list as to who is naughty or nice. Yet I do believe in a God, "of sorts" that is the core that maintains that harmony of the universe "of which we are a a part". That's not Theism, that's IMO common sense as far as I am concerned.

Inferiority complex, huh? Ha. Sorry you interpret it that way. I can see how you might find reason to assume such. Let me assure you, I have no such complex. I will agree though however, when it comes to academic scholarship, I am way down the list. I promise you, I do not feel inferior, I am absolutely grateful, and I do not impugn those that do have such scholarship. Unfortunately they do not aspire to have the same considerations. And it is "they" whom are insulted because I do not have those "academic credentials" to question what they have been trained to "know". There are many who are academically credentialed who do not wear their scholarship on their shoulders who do not use what they know as giving them license to judge others of lessor knowledge.

Now we must keep this in perspective. A person who doesn't know the first thing about how to plant an apple tree, who attempt's to tell a horticulterist how to do it, would of course cause a little ire. Ha. No doubt. That is not what we are discussing here.

What we are talking about here, all are on equal footing. No one knows the truth for sure and to use any academic prowess as a bastion that allows one to impugn another simply because they have "more knowledge" is condescension, and that is one word I have absolutely no use for in any context whatsoever. None! Now as far as the Horticulturist's is concerned, that is not condescension, that's anger and they have the right to bury the arrogant neophyte up to their ears in peat moss. Ha.

I have an education, fair enough; but it did not come as a result of being told what to think and graded on how well I learned what I was being "forced to learn". I acquired it "irl", no offense intended, as a result of my experiencing life and taking notes as I went.

Thanks Solace,
William

Hi William, I hope you are well.

Please don't take this question wrong, but I just have to ask: Why do you care if a person is a Theist or an Atheist? What difference does it make to you personally?

Thank you so very much for that question. It is a most reasonable one, as I will do my best to answer it. Though you might have a hard time hearing the answer for I can only expect it to be Avatarial one. It comes from a Universal perspective. It comes from observing and enduring life without succumbing to it. I am not even sure if Avatarial is even a word. In other words, I have no "personal view point".

I have little control over how I think. It is as though I have been assigned a specific role in my life being lead to that I needed to know that would allow me to reach an understanding of life to aid man in his ongoing voyage.

If you feel it a bit difficult to understand how anyone could make such a statement, try being the person who is making it. If you only knew what my life has entailed, you might not have much difficulty. But if I did relate all that has transpired in my life, you would surely not believe it. For I do not understand it myself. It is beyond both of our comprehension.

Call me a "Universal Peacemaker". I am my best under direct examination as people ask questions who seek answers, just as you have done. The only problem is many do not want to hear the truth to the questions they ask so they don't ask many questions as they are resolved in what their own answers provide them.

I am so thankful for your curiosity. Of course it could be that I am just a wise old man who wishes nothing more than to depart his wisdom. How nice that would be, but I am afraid it goes much deeper than that. Much deeper. Let me explain as I will answer your question, but you deserve a little more.

My life, though seemingly a part of you, was in truth apart from you and the reality you exist in. Without a deeper explanation, it can be much easier to understand by saying I have never been able to follow directions. Never. It's as though I was being led ignoring external inertia focused on insuring my "conformity" that would allow me to exist here among the rest. I cannot understand the nature of that which led me. I just know it exists. This makes my communication much harder, if one must, find that authority to give it credence, to understand.

I have never had the luxury of making choices. Now don't get me wrong, I have definitely made choices but not as the result of what others required. They were my choices, or at least in the beginning, I thought they were anyway. Later, I discovered they were not choices at all. I was destined to experience what I was meant to experience-the good, the bad and the ugly of it-all of it. It was never for me to question and I never did. I knew it was for a reason, yet I never had a clue as to what that reason was.

Most make choices they are "forced" to make, not so much in a physical way, nevertheless in such a way that would allow them to fit into the reality man has constructed. In that I could not follow "these directions", any attempt to force, coerce, manipulate me to conform was met with an intense resistence on my part that bewildered others to no end. I could not allow my life to be altered, even if I wanted to and the most bewildered was me. Yet, it didn't concern me near as much as it did others. It was my "mental" wish for others to "just leave me alone, I'll be okay" that guided me through life. Of course most could not relate to this at all.

As I write these very words they come effortless to me for your question was a most sincere inquiry. As it relates to how "most" think, why would I personally care. Just the question alone gives merit to the rules that govern society and the underlying foundation that is causing it such misery. Why, would it matter to me? Personally? Nothing, for nothing can matter if we view it on a personal level. We are not omnipotent as it relates to our individual thoughts, experiences, feelings and emotions. We must consider others if we are to understand life and the synergy with which it is meant to function. Any divide is detrimental to the function of the whole. That is what you might call a "no brainer". Ha. Unity is the only solution. That unity will solve all of man's problems.

I have no personal interest, only a universal one. It took me a while to understand that myself amidst a reality that encourages separation and forces one to fend for themselves. I can understand why it would be hard for one to imagine a person without "self-interest" as a primary motivation involved in the decisions they make. There is nothing wrong with a healthy sense of self as long as it does not "steal" from another to serve it's selfish motives to control another due to it's knowledge, wealth or status. This reality thrives and is controlled on such reasoning. All are a part either actively, passively or indirectly ambivalent to initiate change even if they could for selfish reasons. Those passively because they have no means and those active for the sake of the power they wield.

Mankind is a unit and unless it functions as one, the universe and that core that drives it will not allow such a separation to exist on any level. It's counterproductive. Self interests is the virus that plagues man and always has and always will.

The reason for my existence, if I am at all correct in my assumptions as it relates to the universal nature of my being is man is at a turning point in his existence. I have tried so hard to relate my thoughts in such a way that would offer no rebuttal. And those that did would appear to be more focused on self than on the welfare of others. There has away's been strength in the unity of the factions that divide us that have always led to bloodshed. Mankind is no different and must do all in it's power to eliminate the barriers that separate it. Anyone that is offended by my "wisdom" will identify their focus is more on "self" than the overall functioning of the "unit". Of course in this reality it is inconceivable to think any other way in order to "survive". Life was never meant to be survived but to be lived, but how were we to know that in so far as our witnessing our own death. That's a part of life and we just need to "get over it". That's all. The fact that we are doing all we can to quantify life, we are losing all quality to life.

You are an individual and a part and must not be excluded, either by force or by choice for life to be realized. Life and the miracle that it is will be visualized when the barriers that separate us begin to fall. Such as the one between the Atheist and the Theist. The very first step is to eliminate "objective value" as a requisite to determine the worth of a human being. Life does not come at a price.

The most valuable resource on the planet Earth is the Human Being and what he can offer in the functioning of the "unit" that is Mankind no matter how meager or how magnificent that offering may be. Peace of mind is that gateway to that core that drives the universe of which I have been able to attune in hopes to guide others that will allow all too.

Thank you TTM for your sincere question. I hope I have been able to shed a little bit of light. Now it is time to reel me back in. I do have a tendency to get out there as I always do. Now I'm dying for a hamburger and fries. Ha.

Later, my friend.
William

William,

your goal is as admirable as it is unreasonable. Man will never be unitied, except under false pretenses. This is so very well exemplified in your crusade to find common ground between theism and atheism. There is no common ground between polar opposites. Any common ground that is manufactured is an illusion, because in the end when one says "this thing is," and the other says "this thing isn't," they simply do not and cannot agree, without one or both changing their mind and no longer being theist or atheist.

I'm no propontent of unity, for as ridiculous a statement as that is to make, especially on a forum such as this where unity is such a touted concept. However, I do have a "live and let live" mentality. I've no desire to stick my nose in another's business, just don't stick yours in mine. That way neither of us has to put up with an unpleasant odour.

That being said, I don't doubt that someone who fancies theirself clever could come back with, "Well you say you don't stick your nose in other's business, but here you are posting your unsolicited thoughts on a public forum." True enough, but I'm not here to change anyone's beliefs or attitude; I know that's pointless. I found that out irl long before coming online. What I am here for is to offer a little clarity, which isn't to assert that my point of view is superior, only that it is different. And whether or not you support unity, variety of perspective (or else subverting perspective, depending on your goal and point of view,) is essential to any outcome that mankind faces, as a whole or apart.

So I'm not saying all of this to deter your objective, only to point out that I think it's futile. But at your age and with your life experience, I don't doubt that you've dealt with far greater obstacles than this much younger man's scepticism. As I said at the start, I believe your goal admirable, I just hate to see an old man waste his remaining years on a hopeless quest. :bigsmile:

Hey Solace,

I know you didn't ask, but may I comment on what you're saying here? I beg your indulgence...

Although these two theological views may be incompatible, both views are held by humans. As such, there exists ground for understanding and yes; unity. Is it not possible that we may agree - as theist and atheist - yet find common ground in which to relate well?

The way I take William's quandry is not so much on reconciling the two opposing views as the "rift" which tends to exist between these two groups of people because of their theology. In this I except the very real possibility that I got it wrong... I've made that mistake before, and I'll make it again I'm sure

I'll take exception to anyone spreading the notion that says, essentially, "Give it up, stop trying, quit dreaming". There are many levels to reconciliation and even the most minute conciliatory common-ground reaps benefits that ripple through everyone in which they come in contact.

I, too, have seen and felt the futility of which you speak. But my god, must we give up? Give in and stop trying? Apathy is a loathsome thing and more often than not, futility is just a word.

Thanks

Well Khethil, when I say we won't have unity, it doesn't mean we can't have peace, or at the very least peace of mind. My advice to anyone would be to be content with what you believe, that is figure it out and actually believe it, rather than to worry about what anyone else believes. We don't need to agree on theology, just as long as we're content to disagree. This doesn't mean we must be apathetic either, but we should care more about an individual's right to be left alone to believe whatever they want rather than what specifically it is that they believe in.

1. Yes, you are right in assuming as much. It is how we think now, Isn't it. There have always been those "hidden agenda's" haven't there. That is indeed "realistic" thought constituant with that reality we exist in. It doesn't have to be that way. That lack of trust is exactly what needs to go and it can only be achieved by real cooperation as all participate. Trust is not easily obtained, expecially in the world. Wouldn't it be nice if it were "common place". Idealistic? You bet. Mediocrity, sucks. We are getting "cooked" in it.

2. Polar Opposites? You assume the divide between Atheist and Theist as polarities? Not by a long shot my friend. The are nothing more than "states of mind". They are not etched in stone. They just don't understand each other. They don't communicate, that's all. Don't put such finite assumptions as you illustrate your inablity to come up with answers. No offense meant. That will drastically limit your thinking. Nohing is finite. Nothing.

3. Live and let live mentality, huh? Wouldn't it be nice if that were truly the case. We would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately that is not the way it is, is it. What it means as we use the phrase is of a more personal nature in that we don't want other's messing with "us". "You don't mess with me, and I want mess with you". How so very isolated one who has to declare such an exclamation. Of course "Live and let live" sounds a whole lot better. The fact is we don't give a damn about how others live. We could care less. And that is a problem. We should. It's important.

4. Posting unsolicited thoughts? What does that mean? Only solicited thoughts allowed? How could anyone in such a venue as this know any thing about another's business? No disrespect intended, but this entire statement makes no sense whatsoever. You are responding as if I have attacked you personally, and I don't even know you. How could I possibly do that? Shouldn't "new thought be encouraged". If only solicited thought alllowed, isn't that what continues the endless circularity as we continue to exchange the same thoughts over and over again accomplishing absolutely NOTHING. Unsolicited thought is where "new thought" will come from. It is that very "new thought" that will jolt man out of reverie he is trapped and mired in. Encourage it will all your heart and soul. Never, ever give up. The answers are out there.

5.> Solace, please with all the greatest intentions, try to get over your defeatist attitude. All is not lost. Now as for your last comment, you should have been here to witness the chuckle I had as I read your closing thoughts. "..waste my remaining years on a hopeless quest"? You see my young friend, this is what you and most just can't grasp. God, I hope you do someday. "Remaining years"? I'm just getting started. As are we all. We just got here. HaHa. Once you get that tattooed into your young brain will you begin to understand what I am talking about. There is no end. Futile and hopeless? Not by a long shot. I'm just getting started. You haven't heard the last of me and I you. We are all in this together. I think I have said that before. Ha.

Thanks for your input.

William

Just a quick note, theism and atheism aren't states of mind. Nervousness is a state of mind. Beliefs (or disbeliefs) are, like you say, etched in stone. Well, more or less. But anyway, they go way deeper than simple 'states of mind'.

ARI, why in the world would you you have to go and make such a "matter of a fact" statement. Ha. What you have just espoused is fodder for endless threads and thoughts. Belief's and states of mind is all we are. It is what give us our being. Belief's are assumptions based on the unknown, and it is those belief's that establish that state of mind among other things.:bigsmile: IMO.

William

Thank you for your thoughtful response, William. You have indeed shed some light. I appreciate you taking the time to explain your feelings so openly.

Pay no attention to those skeptics who try to discourage your vision.

This guy didn't:



--Bill Hicks (1961-1994) RIP

Actually the response that you are referring to was my proposed response that someone could give as a means of pointing out the fallacy of posting in a discussion about personal beliefs while I at the same time propigate not interfering with others' beliefs. I don't know how you could have gotten the impression that I thought you were personally attacking me, especially since you hadn't even yet responded to my post. You could hardly attack me by saying nothing. It's all in good will here, William, I know that. I may be young and oft times rash, but I'm not offended.

Actually, when I say live and let live I do mean it. Your "don't mess with me" interpretation is simply not something I go for. I don't mess with people period. Not even ones who would mess with me. Perhaps some would call that cowardly of me, and I wouldn't blame them, but I simply don't see the point. Why mess with someone who has nothing better to do with their lives than cause someone else trouble? I won't gain from it and certainly neither will they.

It isn't defeatist to encourage people to live in peace and not interfere in other people's lives and beliefs. I don't want anyone coming here and telling me what I should or shouldn't believe, or, as some would have it even, what I can or cannot believe, for them to "mess with me" as it were, nor do I desire to do the same to anyone else. This isn't to say that I shun talking about what people believe, my beliefs and others, only to say that I can accept that people do not agree but don't have to hold it against one another. I am a theist, for as much as any sort of name tag bothers me, even one so ambiguous as that, but I have atheist friends and we get along fine. We don't need a common ground, at least not in so far as our belief in God is concerned, nor do we desire one. And as long as neither of us tries to force our beliefs upon the other, I know we will remain friends.

And this is all I'm saying. When I here words like unity being thrown around, I know, very realistically, that words like tolerance and conformity are not far behind. I can tolerate that someone believes differently than I do, heck I rejoice and celebrate our difference of faith even, but I am by no means going to conform, nor do I wish another to. And I simply don't think that unity is possible without conforming. If someone can show me how unity can happen without conforming then I'll gladly entertain the notion.

Wow, I love how I pose an opposing opinion to someone's post on a debate forum, and suddenly I'm the bad guy...

actually if William's goal is to promote unity among his fellow man, to bridge those gaps that divide, shouldn't he be paying attention to skeptics? Or is this one of those "ignore the problem and it will go away" sort of arguments?

My apologies, Solace. I wasn't referring to you in specific. I myself am a bit on the skeptical side of the fence, so I applaud your viewpoint as heartily as I applaud William's.

Apology accepted then. Seeing as I was the most recent person in this thread to make a post that conflicted with Wlliam's vision, I assumed your post was directed at me. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

I said I could be rash...:surrender:

YouTube - Bill Hicks: What is the point to Life

This is a tough one . . .

------------
"The opposite of bravery has always been conformity." -Powerman 5000

Thank you solace for your further explanation. This is good dialog for you are speaking from you heart and I sincerely believe that. No malice intended on your part whatsoever. But if you might take the meaning of "Tolerance and conformity" as you are using them to be consturcts that involve a sacrifice of sorts, most will share your sentiments if they are truthful. In a context that implies we "must" be tolerant and we "must" comform are counterproductive and that is why I never use those words. Unity is about a harmony that totally negates those words entirely. It involves an "understanding and a consideration" in a more natural context, not as a result of a guilt or remorse but of a genuine interest in helping others realize a better life with "no strings" attached. It is a new reality that links man to his fellow man in a way that cannot be imagined. I just know it exists. Tolerance is a word that provokes "pity" and conformity is a word that instill's "weakness", and it is in the application of using those words in any context that promotes isolation that prevents a natural "consideration and understanding" vital in beginning to realize any unity whatsoever. No one enjoys the idea of "having to be tolerant" or "forced to conform". It is just not how we were made. We don't like being "told" anything. Period. And we do entirely too, too much of that on all levels of society. We must all be allowed to be free as we will then find that universal link that bond's us to each other. We are not naturally combative, we have just been conditioned to be. Give a man his freedom and he will find his way and it is incumbent no one interferes with that path for we all will benefit from where ever it takes us. It is this simple, once you realize the "divine" nature of considering of others before self and the joy that in and of itseff brings, any need for other compenstation will serve as trivial. But rest assured any reward will be graciously bestowed by those whom you offered your consideraton. No strings attached. That my friend is "love personified".

William