A Spiritual Atheist Perspective on God

[Revy]

Yes, God "exists". But what is it?

“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” - 1 John 4:16

Yes, "God is Love"! OMG! Doesn't that sound familiar? It seems every theist out there is saying it. But do they really mean "God has love"? Because love in Christianity is not personified in God. Rather, God is the person and love is something associated with "him".

If "God is Love" then God is Love personified because it says not only that God is Love, but that Love is God. Therefore we are worshipping Love when we worship God. Is Love a conscious almighty being? Obviously not. Objectively at most it is a force in human social relations.

It would seem then that the logical step from such a ringing endorsement of "God is Love" - from the fucking Bible - would spell serious logical consequences for the idea that God is an almighty individual. It would seem that the logical step would be to conclude that if God is Love, then God is a collective metaphor for humanism.

Oh yes, this "God" exists. When we talk of revolution we are speaking directly of this "God" - this human thing which binds people together, progress, equality, love, friendship, comrades, peace, courage, respect for the environment. But moreover, God is also in the self, the advancement, improvement of one's mind and understanding.

Oh yes, atheist comrades. God exists - but it is not what you might have imagined.

- Our resident Spiritual Atheist.

[the last donut of the night]

Ok. If you call it God, you're just tacking on a pretty name to whatever you call this 'bind'. Hell, call it SuperGlue, or by that matter, SuperSpiritualBondOfLife. Whichever sounds less idiotic.

[Kronos]

Stencil, are you going to finger paint for the rest of your life or do you want to move on to bigger and better things?

Your post sounds like conversations I had with my buddies when I was fifteen, sitting in the living room taking bong hits.

It is time for you to philosophize with the big dogs, Stencil. Your days of spending hours in the Self Inspiration section of the book store are over.

I want you to seek this gentleman and read his work:

http://www.mala.bc.ca/%7Emcneil/jpg/spinoza.jpg

[☭_commie_☭]

Let's face it, god isn't real.You know it we all know it!

[deLarge]

1. I am god.
2. I exist.
3. Therefor god exists.

Also, pass the weed

[New Tet]

Yes, God "exists". But what is it?

“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” - 1 John 4:16
[...]
Oh yes, atheist comrades. God exists - but it is not what you might have imagined.

- Our resident Spiritual Atheist.

It never ceases to surprise me how dogmatic some atheists can be.

I used to be rabidly atheistic. Age and experience has helped me moderate it and allow for the possibility that all living things possess an as-of-yet undiscovered spiritual dimension to them.

[deLarge]

It never ceases to surprise me how dogmatic some atheists can be.

Seriously. Especially those people who just checked out The God Delusion (or another similar book), and think their purpose in life is to shout the glory of logic and tell the believers how irrational they are, and how much smarter he/she is than them.

[Decolonize The Left]

Seriously. Especially those people who just checked out The God Delusion (or another similar book), and think their purpose in life is to shout the glory of logic and tell the believers how irrational they are, and how much smarter he/she is than them.

This is an unfair characterization of vocal atheists and anti-theists. It also demonstrates a terrible ignorance regarding history. Historically speaking, theists have been the most vocal in every single discussion involving religion - religious dogma has dominated discourse for thousands of years. Atheists were constantly marginalized for their 'heathen' ways and lack of belief.

Now a couple of guys write some books and theists literally start screaming about oppression and dogmatism. The hypocrisy is astounding.

- August

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It never ceases to surprise me how dogmatic some atheists can be.

I used to be rabidly atheistic. Age and experience has helped me moderate it and allow for the possibility that all living things possess an as-of-yet undiscovered spiritual dimension to them.

If this "spiritual dimension" (whatever that is!) is undiscovered, how do you know it's there at all?

This exact sort of muddle-minded spiritualist mumbo-jumbo might impress the naive or inattentive, but it has a semantic content approximating zero.

[Kassad]

Spiritual atheist? Right, and I'm a Maoist Anarchist.

[MarxSchmarx]

If this "spiritual dimension" (whatever that is!) is undiscovered, how do you know it's there at all?
This exact sort of muddle-minded spiritualist mumbo-jumbo might impress the naive or inattentive, but it has a semantic content approximating zero.

Tisk tisk tisk. Of course we can't know it. If we did it would be scientific, not spiritual. The point is it is possible, that you have to open up to the possibility. Indeed:



I used to be rabidly atheistic. Age and experience has helped me moderate it and allow for the possibility that all living things possess an as-of-yet undiscovered spiritual dimension to them.

Exactly! For instance, I used to naively, and rabidly believe, that it was absurd to claim tea cups orbited Jupiter, and that only a paranoid idiot would believe lizard people are out to corrupt our DNA.

But guess what. age and experience have taught me that science isn't always right, that there are surprises in astronomy, and that it is possible that there are as yet undiscovered porcelein within our solar system. Or lizard people, for that matter.

[deLarge]

This is an unfair characterization of vocal atheists and anti-theists.
I know it's purely anecdotal, but the fact is that the majority of people that I have met, and who describe themselves as atheists, fit that model. Not to say /all/ do, but a large number of them. Perhaps it has to do more with age, but still.


theists have been the most vocal in every single discussion involving religion

Not that they're not vocal now, but rather that one can be equally annoying and preachy without being a theist.

[Decolonize The Left]

I know it's purely anecdotal, but the fact is that the majority of people that I have met, and who describe themselves as atheists, fit that model. Not to say /all/ do, but a large number of them. Perhaps it has to do more with age, but still.

No, you are making pure generalizations to support a weak claim. "A large number of them"? You sure? How many 'preachy' atheists do you know? How many atheists are then in the US?


Not that they're not vocal now, but rather that one can be equally annoying and preachy without being a theist.

Untrue. When theists preach and are annoying, they do so before the background of a history of dominance and authority. They do so when, in the present times, they possess an absolute grasp of power.

When atheists preach and are annoying, they do so from a position of an oppressed group. Hence it is not analogous.

- August

[deLarge]

No, you are making pure generalizations to support a weak claim. "A large number of them"? You sure? How many 'preachy' atheists do you know? How many atheists are then in the US?
As I said, it was anecdotal. I am certainly an atheist in the way that you would define it (though I disagree on semantic grounds), so it's not as if I am really biased against atheists.


Untrue. When theists preach and are annoying, they do so before the background of a history of dominance and authority. They do so when, in the present times, they possess an absolute grasp of power.

When atheists preach and are annoying, they do so from a position of an oppressed group. Hence it is not analogous.People who preach at me while giving off a smug sense of superiority are annoying period, theist or atheist. Whether or not I agree with them (certainly with the self-described atheist moreso than the theist) is secondary to their attitude. I've met some liberal Christians (Quaker) and pagans (Shinto specifically) who were quite civil and definitely not annoying.

And while someone might hold a more logical position (e.g. atheism), they may still over all be less philosophically knowledgeable than a theist--I've met self-described atheists who are atheists because they simply wanted to rebel against their parents, as well as theists who were knowledgeable of the teleological, cosmological, ontological, and transcendental arguments, and in a flat comparison of knowledge would win.

[deLarge]

Spiritual atheist? Right, and I'm a Maoist Anarchist.

Atheism doesn't imply materialism, and nor does materialism imply atheism. One can perfectly well be an atheist and still believe in silly things like ghosts and pan-spermia or whatnot. Similarly, one can be a materialist theist provided that their 'god' exists as matter and energy; there were Greek theists who were materialists/atomists, for example, and you also have pantheists and the like. For the sake of argument, you could also imagine someone who believed in dualism, but held that the soul was merely a force of nature that has yet to be discovered by science.

[Decolonize The Left]

People who preach at me while giving off a smug sense of superiority are annoying period, theist or atheist. Whether or not I agree with them (certainly with the self-described atheist moreso than the theist) is secondary to their attitude. I've met some liberal Christians (Quaker) and pagans (Shinto specifically) who were quite civil and definitely not annoying.

Attitude is one thing, but attitude stems from material conditions. Churches don't pay taxes, marriage is a religious institution and involves tax breaks, the vast majority of US politicians are openly religious and all of this (and more) creates an atmosphere of oppression. Smugness is nothing in comparison.


And while someone might hold a more logical position (e.g. atheism), they may still over all be less philosophically knowledgeable than a theist--I've met self-described atheists who are atheists because they simply wanted to rebel against their parents, as well as theists who were knowledgeable of the teleological, cosmological, ontological, and transcendental arguments, and in a flat comparison of knowledge would win.

This is irrelevant. I've met theists who are complete idiots and take the bible literally (I think a large percentage of Americans actual do). You see that your claims are easily countered with a different perspective - I've met atheists who are knowledgeable of many logical arguments and in a flat comparison would win.

- August

[Revy]

Hmm, well, this generated a lot of discussion.

To clarify, this was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, though I identify with a lot of the sentiments I expressed. I was mocking the idea that God (a person) equates to love (a feeling).

I am somewhat of a spiritual atheist. I do not believe in a personal God, or a soul. But I do not take a strictly naturalistic view of the universe, I do speculate about whether there are "forces" beyond our understanding, non-sentient ones, or whether the human mind potentially has the capability for psychic abilities. I do not dismiss these things out of hand because there is no real evidence for them, but I do not hold faith in them either. I'm just open minded about it.

[deLarge]

Attitude is one thing, but attitude stems from material conditions. Churches don't pay taxes, marriage is a religious institution and involves tax breaks, the vast majority of US politicians are openly religious and all of this (and more) creates an atmosphere of oppression. Smugness is nothing in comparison.
That's a rather subjective comparison. I find smugness quite annoying, personally. Not to say that there isn't oppression, but someone hurling insults over the internet *cough*youtube arguments*cough* has more to do with ego than with fighting oppression.



This is irrelevant. I've met theists who are complete idiots and take the bible literally (I think a large percentage of Americans actual do). You see that your claims are easily countered with a different perspective - I've met atheists who are knowledgeable of many logical arguments and in a flat comparison would win.
But the fact remains that merely being an atheist does not necessitate nor imply being intelligent, any more than being a theist does. There may be a tendency in people who de-converted from theistic religion to be more intelligent, but in such a case the relationship between intelligence and atheism is a question of correlation versus causation.

[Decolonize The Left]

That's a rather subjective comparison. I find smugness quite annoying, personally. Not to say that there isn't oppression, but someone hurling insults over the internet *cough*youtube arguments*cough* has more to do with ego than with fighting oppression.

This is true. On the other hand, intelligent arguments have everything to do with fighting oppression.

In all honesty, I'm sure we agree on most points. All I was saying is that you were generalizing when referring to vocal atheists and anti-theists, much like many of these individuals generalize theists. These sorts of assumptions (on both ends) ultimately help nobody and hinder discussion.

- August

[deLarge]

In all honesty, I'm sure we agree on most points. All I was saying is that you were generalizing when referring to vocal atheists and anti-theists, much like many of these individuals generalize theists. These sorts of assumptions (on both ends) ultimately help nobody and hinder discussion.

True. Part of the problem is also that the personality type of someone who brings up such discussions in that manner would tend towards smugness, regardless of theology.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm a resident dogmatic atheist. I've always admitted that there is a statistically irrelevant chance "God," as defined typically, exists. Language doesn't have a pure form in the way suggested. Love = kitten as much as Love = God. Language is only an attempt to mirror reality.

To say what God is involves simply attaching a name to whatever suits your interests. If we go with the typical definition, there is no evidence. Therefore, he doesn't exist. Truth is established merely by observation and analysis. To say something doesn't exist is equivalent to saying there is no evidence.

This is precisely why atheists can be so dogmatic. We are disagreeing about how language should operate. Agnostics tell me I should say I'm "uncertain." I think useless. To say you're uncertain, when no evidence is available, serves no purpose unless the goal is worth pursuing.

I am uncertain if cancer can be eliminated(though evidence suggests it is). I am certain we want to cure it. I am uncertain if God exists. Evidence suggests we should not want him to. Independence and creating our own paradise should be our goal.

An agnostic is simply an atheist who wants God to exist. Otherwise, he would not entertain notions of "uncertainty." He would simply dismiss it for there is no evidence, and even if there worth, it wouldn't be worth seeking out.

[deLarge]

An agnostic is simply an atheist who wants God to exist. Otherwise, he would not entertain notions of "uncertainty." He would simply dismiss it for there is no evidence, and even if there worth, it wouldn't be worth seeking out.

An agnostic can be an atheist, as the two terms address different issues. The former (agnostic versus gnostic) addresses knowledge, the latter (atheism versus theism) addresses belief. In other words, you can /not know/ god exists and thus not believe in him/her/it (which I think is your position), or you can believe sans knowledge through faith, or you can claim to 'know' (e.g. through pointing out logical contradictions in the definition of 'god') that god does or does not exist.

I myself think that labeling oneself as 'atheist' is inherently meaningless without context and a definite definition of the terms involved. Being an atheist in regards to YHWH is different than being an atheist in regards to the pantheist god, which is different than being an atheist in regards to Spinoza's god. That the Christian is an atheist towards Zeus does not mean that the label 'atheist' is useful in any real way in that particular scenario, and thus I also reject the label 'atheist' as a catch-all descriptor for someone who believes in non-duality (or rather disbelieves in duality) and materialist metaphysics.

Certainly one can be an atheist in regards to specific definitions and instances of 'god', but to be an 'atheist period' doesn't mean much when someone might define 'love' as 'god'. Conversely, arguing that god exists because god is love is only an argument for 'god' insofar as god is defined as 'love', and thus labeling it as an argument for theism would be short-sighted and naive; someone can be a theist in regards to the love-god and still be an atheist in regards to YHWH and every other non-material deity. Such a contradictory position is the root of why I do not label myself as an 'atheist' as an accurate description of my views, but rather ignostic.