outer-theism for servants, inner-theism for leaders

reply to post by lowki


What logical argument?

What scientific argument?

So far, no scientist, theologian, achaeologist, mathematician, physicist or historian has ever logically or empirically demonstrated the existence of a supernatural or omnipotent deity.

"Scripture says there is a God therefore there is a God." (Theism)

"I don't need scripture to believe in God, he's everywhere" (Deism/Pantheism)

Cool logic bro, enjoy deluding more minds and contacting higher spirit beings.

"Scripture says there is a God therefore there is a God." (Theism)

"Experience says there is a systematic way to see God for yourself therefore STFU and do it" (Mysticism)



Nice talking to you again. Goodbye.

reply to post by Student X


I've tried your systematic way, i was indoctrinated as a child in Catholic school. It didn't work. I failed to get any meaning out of it.

I even studied the scriptures critically later, and listened to many professor's analysis of scripture, religious infrastructure and history. Mysticism has many conotations in different religions and even in many spiritual groups, I've found these to be non-effective. The only false or conjured feelings i got was a sense of false hope and false fear.

I prefer meditation, I don't expect to unravel mysteries of the universe and it's creator (if any) by doing so. I'll keep an open-mind though.

Good luck with your mysticism and your path to enlightenment.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Student X

 

I've tried your systematic way, i was indoctrinated as a child in Catholic school. It didn't work. I failed to get any meaning out of it.

Well for starters, you could try to avoid misunderstanding what I meant by systematic. I did not mean your childhood indoctrination, and I think you damn well know that.

Good luck with your mysticism and your path to enlightenment.

Thanks! Good luck with your path of deliberate obtuseness.

Nice talking to you again. Goodbye.

reply to post by Student X

deliberate obtuseness

How very spiritual and accepting of you.

Have a great day too

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Student X

 

deliberate obtuseness

How very spiritual and accepting of you.

Yes, it is.

I see the picture you are trying to paint. You feel insulted by my words, and you think that a spiritual person can't insult you and accept you at the same time, is that it?

reply to post by Student X


Was a irrational attack which was an attempt to demean my intelligence. I don't think anyone has the right to do this in any debate, regardless of how hurt you may feel by disagreements. Disagreements are always going to occur in debate, this is not disrespect.

Again, i have done nothing but respond to arguments in a civil manner, and with a reason why.

I don't just demean someone's intelligence to satify my ego, i have a reason and actually meaniful concerns.

I honestly thought with your systematic approach you may have been a little kinder to even someone with different views.

I think you have shown your true colours to be honest.

I won't be responding. And i won't thankyou for your impoliteness. Goodbye.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Student X

 

Was a irrational attack which was an attempt to demean my intelligence.

And did it occur to you, for even a second, that I was merely rebuking you for being so eager to misunderstand what I and others are trying to tell you?

For either you are deliberatley misunderstanding, or you are ignorant of mysticism. Ignorance is not a sin, but if you are uncertain of something, such as what I meant by systematic, then it would be helpful if you admitted ignorance and asked for clarification...instead of assuming that I meant something akin to your childhood indoctrination. Which I did not.

Nice talking to you.

reply to post by Student X


I'm not ignorant, i'm as ignorant as the majority of geniouses and scientists on this planet.

I'm not iditioc enough to believe without evidence, and appears if there is deity, this deity is capricious, malevolent and tyrranous, I can conclude that based on my OBJECTIVE findings of the universe;

.......he doesn't care, animals dead, planets destroyed, solar systems collapsed. Humans and animals are not designed, they are evolved.

Again, PROVE to me that he is exists AND is loving and caring and i will join you in your mysticism.

Like i've said TIME AND TIME again, No scientist, theologian, mathematician, historian has ever demonstrated (logically or empirically) the existence of a supernatural deity. I'm keeping an open-mind though.

Wouldn't want to delude myself, you see?

Cool.

Laters.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware

I'm not ignorant, i'm as ignorant as the majority of geniouses and scientists on this planet.

Everyone is ignorant of something. You are ignorant of mysticism. I can tell because I am an expert in it and I can see your mistakes. The majority of geniuses and scientists on this planet are ignorant of mysticism too. Hey, we can't all be experts in everything. If you would just admit your ignorance, instead of trying to play it off, then I wouldn't be rebuking you.

Nice talking to you.

reply to post by Student X


I guess i'm ignorant then.

Laters, brother of ye olde Earth.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Atheism is a belief.

Just because the position is based around the absence of belief in God or gods, does not alter the fact that it is still a belief.

You could say that a Christian, for example, has an absence of belief in any other truth except the Bible, but that doesn't mean that their position isn't a belief.


The only time an ''absence of belief'' can be adequately separated from holding a position of belief, is if someone is ignorant of a concept or claim; those who would call themselves atheists, by definition, are aware of the concept of God or gods.

You said it yourself earlier:

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Atheists disagree because there is no evidence to assert this theory.

Atheists hold a belief that there is no evidence to assert the theory, and then consequently form a position of non-belief in the theory. The position of non-belief stems from the original belief, just as a theist's faith stems from the initial belief that they have seen or felt evidence for the existence of a God or gods.

Agnosticism, as well, is a belief, as it is the belief that any kind of ultimate reality is unkown or unkowable, which obviously differs from a theist who believes that they know the truth, or an atheist who actively disbelieves who also believes that they know the truth.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Positive assertion - Burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

I don't have a word for my lack of belief in Santa, Fairies or Goblins. I wish i didn't have a label for my lack of belief in a deity.

Atheism - Is the lack of belief in a deity.

Agnosticism/Gnosticism - What you know.
Theism/Atheism - What you do or don't believe.

I also believe there is no teapot on pluto, that's a "belief" too by your standards.

For every unfalsifiable hypothesis, i would suspend belief and judgement until i had further evidence. I don't consider "faith" (blind faith) to be a virtue. Even if it appears to be a rational metaphysical claim (Multiverse theorem)

Other rational based unfalsifiable hypothesis like metaphysics i can at least put SOME trust in. As the conclusions are reached using mathematical rationalisations of our current knowledge of reality.

Many scientists don't believe before having evidence, the pursuit of truth demands we keep our minds open, why would that particular rationale be any different regarding religious dogma or answering whether a deity exists or not?

The majority of scientists either express having no religion, a large proportion being Agnostic Atheists. I'm not saying that this supports the truth that there is no God. I just think it's an intelligent stance to take. As do many famous intellects (past and present).

Nice to see you again Holmes, btw. Happy new year.

Well for me the esoteric is the ropayl path but is the most dangerous. I can agree that exotricism is the way of social control as alll esoteric gropus that do not grovel to the state continuously are held to be a threat. Esoteric people are fiercely individualistic as they can have somesort of direct relationship to deity and are lesslikely to be herded.

reply to post by tiger5


Well for me personally, I consider myself a free thinker, I don't belong to any "cults" or esoteric "groups" as such. I am free from organised religion, I don't believe in a omnipotent God but i'm more than happy to be proved wrong.

I put by loyalty in free speech and free democratic debate. It's what some great 1st world countries are founded on; and it has seen the liberation of ethnic minorities, women and homosexuals - Removed private prejudices and given minorities a voice, however small.

I would never be hearded or misled by the masses. I am not a sheep. Appeal to majority is not an argument i often use to support any belief or argument.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I have been listening in as it were...on the debate being carried out over the last few pages. I must say that I highly respect your position and the manner in which you have presented it. I'm not an educated person as such...the things I have come to believe are only based on my limited exposure to information and also contemplation of the observable parameters of our conscious existence. I have struggled in the past with trying to reconcile the contradictions presented by these observations.
On the one hand I see evidence that would seemingly point to a creator. Things such as the presence of an (arguably) ideal enviroment for human life that includes such "extras" as a vast diversity of food which not only sustain us nutritionally but are also attractively fragrant and appetizing. Not to mention the abundance of recognizable beauty presented by our world in the form of flowers and other botanical wonders. And also the appreciation for music that we as humans have are some of the things that in my opinion point to a creator. At least the presence of such things causes me to find it easier to believe they are the result of intelligient design rather than the result of a mindless process.
On the other hand I see the unbridled cruelty present within our world that makes me doubt the existence of a creator. At least it creates confusion of thought and inability to understand the rationale of a creator that would seemingly provide so bountifully for it's creation on one hand and apparently coldly neglect it on the other.
The only line of thinking that I have been able to adopt that reconciles these two conflicting sides is the belief that it is necessary to allow us conscious beings to be subjected to cruelty and hardship and doubt and fear in order to develop energy in an unhindered manner. It could quite possibly be that if our experiences were limited on one side of the coin it would also limit the development of the other side. If this is the case it would indicate that there is a great deal of positive energy presently held in potential that is yet to be unleashed upon humanity.
Of course I have no proof for such a thing but it seems reasonable to me.

reply to post by lowki

I hear you saying simply that there is nothing that is not, only everything that is already always.

This everything already always, or alpha and omega, isn't IN the creation, and is neither within or without, or, both innerant and transcendant above and below within AND without, and it's all of these and nothing less, in other words it's not nothing, but let us not mistake the apparent something as anything in particular, and this then is the recognition referred to here



As for Christianity I would refer people to Meister Eckhart, a true Christian mystic of the highest order.

I'm waiting for a scientific theory to come out regarding God. It seems so far, no scientist is willing to present a theory.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I keep seeing these kind of statements from atheists on this site, and I don't understand the reasoning behind it.

One of the basic principles of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. How do you imagine a scientific theory regarding God could be constructed which meets the criterion of falsifiability?

As long as science excludes verifiable inner experiences as a valid investigative domain, it is logically impossible for science to produce a theory of metaphysical realities, let alone God.

reply to post by mysticnoon


Well come on now, thats the very point!

It is a safe, external, stance of "debate." Much less concerned with discussion about perception, and conceptualization, than proving one self as "right" and the opponent "wrong."

You will also see the allegory of "lack of belief" being akin to "not collecting stamps." (was it mentioned in this thread? might have missed it) Though, im not so sure "non-stamp-collectors" spend nearly as much time locking horns with those who do collect stamps

Good people reside within all belief systems, though (even those that dont see their belief systems as belief systems). Some are just much more interested in semantics than the concepts behind them. It truly is interesting though, how "outer-theism" results almost solely in great control, and "inner-theism" creates independent thought of sorts. I suppose this ones belief system lies firmly within both, or all. I also agree with the assertion that atheism lies within "outer-theism." Though, as always, anything one "invokes" about "atheists" will be seen as a point of contention and debate. They might be seen as "master-debaters" or "purveyors of semantic wankery" (truly no offense meant to those thin-skinned, keep in mind im quite the idiot )

Buddhists are an interesting topic, as i feel they are just as susceptible to go either way. The actual teachings of buddha might be seen as inner-theism by general nature, but the mainstream practice can be seen as "outer-theism." I think one could make the same point about christianity as well. Actual sects tend to vary from one extreme to the other, and pretty much everything in between. The mainstream, or popular, sects seem to be "outer-theistic" in nature. Perhaps derived from one wanting something "else" to absolve personal responsibility? Very interesting, to this one, as i had not quite thought about it in that way before.

The role of otrhodoox religion in social control is well known. The antics of the various royal families and other Elites makes it clear that many do not respect religion. A good example is the British royal family.