Atheist for an hour

Eorl,

One ploy involved in "self scrutiny" is to try replacing "I" with "It".

....Observe "it" typing on the keyboard...."it" chattering to itself internally...."it" looking at itself in the mirror.....etc.

This is not specifically an "atheistic" exercise but one that objectifies the "self" and its attachments. This objectification may lead to a vantage point by which any I/God relationship gives way to an "it"/"its god" relationship as seen from a distance.

Well, I am. But I am not religious. Still, I have tried to become these beliefs at one point in my life, but the result was a world I was not comfortable in, so I reverted back to my usual fluent and undefined self. I hold one truth high, and that is that "your focus determines your reality". "Self" is merely this focus, and if my attention changes, I change. I've tried living the atheist too, but I felt so presumptuous that it made me uncomfortable. So now I am nowhere, and everywhere.

Yes, Cyracuz, that's how I see it "nowhere" (no egoself) and "everywhere" (you are the world).
Focus's method of objectification is what I do virtually every morning. It is liberating. In a sense, Focus, it IS an atheistic exercise. As the "self" is removed from your subjective center, you cease to be separate from the world, i.e., there is no God apart from you. You are liberated from that Grand Dualism: "I" and "all else, including the fictitous Great Other: God.

ebrown's earlier statement--"because of my faith, I wasn't living life to the fullest"--reminds us that ideologies about SUPERnatural things and OTHERworldly anticipations minimize and deprecate our REAL life.

While I understand what you mean, and agree with the notion of it, there is something in this statement that disagrees with me.

I think it is a matter of word definition.

As I see it, an atheist relates to religion. There is a "negative" relation as oposed to the "positive" relation of the theist. Atheism is to theism what satanism is to christianity. A reverse stance, but still centred around the same issue. I would not call a person who disregards theism an atheist.

I am not religious, but I do consider myself a spiritual person. An atheist, as I understand it, would probably heap me in with theists because of that, so I am not an atheist either...

I have faith, and I feel I do not have to understand the world to trust it, and that is another point upon which I differ from atheists. (I think). As I see it, this incomplete understanding of the world is what leaves room for faith. Not in any deity, just faith in the general sense of strong optimism.

Very good, Cryacuz. Here we have a legitimate disagreement, but centering primarily around, as you say, definitions of words.
To me "atheism" DOES pertain to the popular conception of religion--meaning literally "no" or "without" God (theos). I insist that my "atheism" has nothing to do with a negative relation to God (that would be negative theism, or a form of satanism, which is the farthest thing from my orientation or that of the Buddhism I understand and favor). My atheism pertains to something more structurally subtle than hostility; it pertains to the non-existence of something that supposedly exists fundamentally apart from my "true self", in Buddhist terminology my (and your) dharma nature, big mind, true Self, etc. etc. (as opposed to an illusory, small mind and false ego-self. God does not (nor does the World) exist as something separate from me (and you).
Knock, knock.
Who's there (asks God)?
Me.
Go away.
After considerable thought and meditation I return:
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
You.
Come in.

I agree with your conception of "faith". To me it is the opposite (in a sense) of "belief". I feel no need to have a comforting BELIEF about the positive or hospitable nature of the Cosmos-Reality because I have a much deeper FEELING that it is o.k., whatever its ultimate and intellectually mysterious nature may be. After all, that nature IS MY NATURE. Faith is an attitude, not a conceptualization. Like you, having faith I do not need religious doctrine or belief.
So you can see, while we define "atheism" differently, our general stance is similar.

Eorl, i think Fresco has it nailed down with the "subjectification" of theism--the theist cannot, or at the least, does not habitually, separate the concept of deity from the concept of self. Theism is a major, or the major component in their view of themselves, so that a genuine theist may in fact be incapable of the exercise you want to get them to attempt.

That's really good.

JL

It does seem that the only difference here is how we define atheism. If I go by your definition there is no disagreement, although I would call what you describe as atheism more as non-theism; a non theistic spirituality. That is how I would classify my own experience anyway. Here in norway, atheist (spelled without the H in norwegian) simply refers to someone who "knows" that there is no god.

But that definition doesn't capture all those who have never taken a stand in the matter, those who are more or less oblivious to the issue of wether or not there is a god because they couldn't care less.

Yes, Cryacuz. My atheism is, as I understand it, also a non-theistic spirituality. That is how I categorize Buddhism. No god, just a slant (perspective) on my experienced Reality. It certainly is not "anti-theism or anti-spirituality.
I do not "know" in some scientific sense that there is no God. I do not believe in a no-God. The notion of God (as Abrahamic fundamentalists understand it) simply makes no sense to me, and therefore it has no place in my spiritual life.
I could not care less that some people believe in "God" or hold ANY believe. I just hope that it gives them comfort, does not stunt their growth, and that they do not try to impose it on others.

It's such a pleasure to have a measure of disagreement with someone who understands me.

I'm not prepared to try it again Earl. Like RealLife I know what it is like to not believe for awhile and found that I didn't like it. And like George, I spent a time trying to deny my religious faith; either shuck it or adopt something "better". And I finally wound up back at a point of truth that I could not deny.

But having been in both places, I like the place I am in much MUCH better than not being a believer.

A God. or higher intelligence, is always going to have to be an absract, idealistic concept. It's a not a prerequisite in living to follow what necessarily is someting formed in some heads of the ancients, and is now if, to a greater degree, something formed in each invidual's head. We use another organ which has no thinking capacity, the heart, although if it decides to stop function, I know I would be worrying that after cremation. Since religion mostly dwells on death, my choice and I would like my ashes floated out over the Pacific Ocean, to dilute, follow same current and wonder around the seas of this great Earth. Okay, so I would love to end up in the Hawaiian islands but it sure would be a short vist. Unless I'm washed ashore and and become part of the beach beneath of lot sunbather's butts.

Foxfyre,

Thanks for that excellent witness statement !

The world will not become "enlightened" about religion any time soon; like several centuries.

Compared to the middle ages, we live, as Nietzsche proclaimed, after the death of God. But, he added, we remain and will remain for some time (as C.I., suggests) in the shadow of His corpse.

Ne'er do I mind but to welcome Lightwizard.





Me, I'm out here on the shoals. Not such a bad place, nods to all.

Just a thought.... if, as the Christians believe..... God created all things, and had the foresight to tell humans that he created them in his own image.... what did he say to the pigs, goats, elephants,crocodiles.... so on and so on did he tell them... he had made them in his own image?. You know RL??

anton, God has great imagination to create anything he desires. That's what makes him "god." But, and there's always a but, even god has limitations on "perfection." He created everything in perfectd order before Adam and Eve ate the apple. Since then, all the animals became sinners too, and many were destroyed in the world flood!

The funny thing about all this is how the animals all fed themseleves before they sinned. They were all vegetarians.

Excepting the grammatical errors (man, was I in a hurry and a bit off that day) and typo of "wander," (a Freudian slip, perhaps -- "wonder!"), I don't believe a "Creator" has an intelligence we lowly humans understand. That's the ultimate human egoism that it is anything like us. The suppositions that a higher intelligence is an alien race is the stuff of sci-fi -- "2001," for instance, never introduces us to any specific entity. The Monolith is completely symbolic. We should be happy that it's a miracle this planet exists and we are taking a ride on it. Despite how the human race and Mother Nature can really throw horrendous chaos into the workings of our survival here, and it's always going to be a bit tough, it's all we've got and making the best of it is the only course of action.

Hi LW, I find it ironic that the bible talks about a flood to cleanse this world of sin, and we continue to have tsunamis that kills hundreds of thousands in one sweep of the oceans that kills innocent babies as well as "sinners." I guess, we just need to forget about logic and common sense to continue to believe in the myths of the bible.