Religion (and lack thereof) at Hypography

[CraigD]

The core of the word is 'Theist', as if that's the norm, and the prefix 'a' is added to it to describe someone who is not a theist. But the flavour of the word favours theism as being the norm. As of now, for balance, I would like to change the table on that score. In my books, someone not believing in the supernatural would be a 'Realist', and someone who does believe in the supernatural, would be a 'Surrealist'. These terms would then use 'Realism' as the core.

I prefer to keep the terms as they are. Their popularity, I think, is justified, and due to their evoking strong connotations on many levels.

 

I find the term “atheist” – “one not believing in God” – an apt description of myself and others of my generation. Like most people with my background, I at one time believed in God in about the same way I believed in Antarctica – Though I’d seen neither, I was led by multiple trustworthy-seeming people to believe both exist. I was also enticed to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but in a sly, tongue-in-cheek way that encouraged me to promptly disbelieve in them. At age 6, I was a theist.

 

Helped perhaps in part by the lessons of Santa and the Easter Bunny, by age 18, I had placed God in a category similar to Santa and the EB – similar, but importantly different: though no functional adult believes in the objective existence of Santa or the EB, arguable most of them believe in the objective existence of God. Theism appears to be the human norm, and once described me, so the label atheist seems to me to describe me well: one familiar with theism who actively rejects its central premise, and thus defined well by what one dos not believe. At age 18, I was an atheist.

 

Terms pairs like realist/surrealist, naturalist/supernaturalist, or the similarly-derived invention of the brights constituency, bright/super, seem to me less appropriate, because, IMHO, comparatively few theists have a good understanding of a naturalistic worldview. Conversations about the subject with intelligent, honest, friendly theists will usually reach a point where they admits that they can’t understand or accept how the world/universe could exists without a creator. Where a realist/bright concludes that, because many once mysterious phenomena have been explained according to scientifically derived theories of nature, reason dictates that the remaining ones will also, theists appear to either not understand or accept this.

 

Thus, I don’t think we can draw a useful parallels between atheism – not believe that observed reality is caused by God – and “a-naturalism” – not believe that it is caused by natural processes. It seems an innate trait or ubiquitous learned behavior causes theism to be the norm in human beings, atheism a learned exception to the norm. Whether the cause is an innate, neurophysiological/anatomical trait, a learned behavior, or an interacting combination of the two, is, I think, a very important question.

[CerebralEcstasy]

Brace yourselves hypographians.........I am a theist.

 

I know you're all shocked.....

---------

[Pyrotex]

Brace yourselves hypographians.........I am a theist. I know you're all shocked..... :hihi:

 

RUN AWAY!!! RUN AWAY!!!

 

That's okay. I was a theist myself until I was about 22 years old. Then I went and read the whole Bible. Woops. :doh:

[CerebralEcstasy]

RUN AWAY!!! RUN AWAY!!!

 

That's okay. I was a theist myself until I was about 22 years old. Then I went and read the whole Bible. Woops. :hihi:

 

While that's a great feat, I wonder if you'd approach other books in such a manner.

 

Let's pretend for one moment that you're not very good in physics, but you have a heavy interest in quantum mechanics.

 

Would you set off and read the texts all by yourself and hope to understand it?

 

Or would you take a course, taught by a professor who knows the text book and can break it down into parts that you can comprehend?

 

I was younger than yourself when I read the bible, and I was horribly confused, and frustrated with the seeming contradictions throughout it. Aggravated me to such a point I threw it away..... *laughs*

 

However, I had friends that I questioned who were more versed in the scriptures. Some questions were cleared up, while others only grew more frustrating.

 

Like why do some people believe that Jesus is God, when Jesus was kneeling in the garden to pray to his heavenly Father. Didn't seem rational to me.

[Eclogite]

I always get upset by the strong tendency evident on this and other forums to equate theist with Christian. Pyrotex has definitely done that here, claiming to have rejected theism on the basis that one religious work allegedly 'revealed' by God struck him negatively.

Cerebral Ecstacy has been more circumspect, but her logical defence of the Bible suggests she may also be guilty as charged.

Ah well, if I didn't get upset from time to time I wouldn't know what normal is.

[Pyrotex]

While that's a great feat, I wonder if you'd approach other books in such a manner. ....

Exactly my point.

 

The Bible isn't technical or physics or math. It's basically stories and letters. I read it through exactly as I would read, say, the collected works of William Shakespeare. And just as you say, I was shocked, horrified and frustrated.

 

There are few if any christian denominations that encourage its members to "read" the Bible as I did--straight through. And the reason is simple--people would go "ugh!" and toss it away.

 

That's why Bible classes pick and choose the verses, and slather them up with heaps of "explanations" and "interpretations". Bandaids. The Bible just can't stand on its own. And churches can't stand for their members to read it on their own. IMHO, as always.

[freeztar]

That's a bit of a stretch eh Cerebral?

Just about anyone can understand "God said let there be light" whereas not many people would understand a statement like "God said let there be Planck time".

The bible is meant to be easy to read and understand so that it is accessible to anyone, whereas physics is most certainly not.

 

Dislaimer: I have not read the entire bible, but a good portion of it.

[Pyrotex]

I always get upset by the strong tendency evident on this and other forums to equate theist with Christian.....

You're absolutely right, Eclo! :hihi: My bad! Mea culpa! Godfrey Daniel!

 

You make a good point and I will be more circumspect in the future. My wife is a "theist" and certainly NOT a christian, so I should have known better.

[Larv]

...The Bible isn't technical or physics or math. It's basically stories and letters. I read it through exactly as I would read, say, the collected works of William Shakespeare. And just as you say, I was shocked, horrified and frustrated...

Interesting. That's partly why I read the Bible. But I love the writing even more than the stories. I use it as an inspiration for improving my own literary style. I am never disappointed with the beauty of its books. However, other than that and a valuable history ducument, I don't find it spiritually meaningful. It's just another account for what happens to people when they don't know any better.

 

—Larv

[DougF]

I'm a theist, I'm proud, and am not ashamed. It's perfectly reasonable that people mock me for my beliefs.

I believe strongly in "freedom of religion", or as the title of this thread mentions, "lack thereof".

 

Whatever makes people happy or comfortable is fine with me. :)

Short and sweet! I like it.;) I'm a theist I would like to think that God (or my version thereof) had a hand in this Blue Ball we all live on, if he made this place then why not more? if we are alone, then it's a real waste of SPACE. IMHO :(

[pianoman1976]

Hello friends,

 

I don't like the choices available on this poll. Lousy choices, really.

 

I take "theist" as pertaining to organized religion. "Atheism" requires a non-belief in god. "Spiritual Atheism" - that's a new one. I assume this means a person in touch with their inner workings, but without a belief in a higher power.

 

You forgot a fourth option. Call it what you like - the type of person apposed to organized religion, but still a firm believer in a God of some sort.

 

This is where I fall. I dig the teachings of Jesus - especially translated from a Jungian perspective, but also see merit in many other traditions. Buddhism is a fantastic lesson in psychology.

 

Organized religion takes one away from God. Personal spirituality in the form of honesty, humility, compassionate intention, and self awareness puts you directly in alignment with something great. I can't say I know just what it is yet - but it sure feels good.

 

Most people are asleep. Unconscious as Jung would put it. It is our task in life to wake up - to become conscious and to heal the split in our psyche so that se can inter into true relationships with each other rather than being blinded by the unconscious mirror - projecting that which we do not know about ourselves onto others. This task is a difficult one.

 

"Enter by the narrow gate, since the road that leads to perdition is wide and spacious, and many take it; but it is a narrow gate and a hard road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matt. 7:13-14/Luke 13:24)

 

The wide road is the way through life that we travel unconsciously, the road of least resistance and mass identity. The narrow road requires consciousness, close attention, lest we wander off the path. Only few take it because of its individual character and because it entails the hardship of becoming conscious.

 

Ryan

[CraigD]

You forgot a fourth option. Call it what you like - the type of person apposed to organized religion, but still a firm believer in a God of some sort.

In this poll, and in the common definition of the term that option would be “theist”. A theist is one who believes in the existence of one or more gods.

 

The term “deist” means specifically one who believes in one of more gods, but rejects organized (“revealed”) religion – which appears to describe you, pianoman, more specifically than theist. Deism was popular in the 18th and 19th centuries – Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln professed to being Diests.

 

A “religionist” is one who subscribes to a religion (usually with great zealotry).

"Spiritual Atheism" - that's a new one. I assume this means a person in touch with their inner workings, but without a belief in a higher power.

It was a new one on me, too. After a bit of hashing out in this thread, I now think its consensus meaning is more-or-less. “one who believes in supernatural entities what aren’t typically god-like,” and excludes people who believe in ”Spinoza’s God”. Albert Einstein stated that he believed in Spinoza’s God – though some people who believe in this conception would likely describe themselves as “spiritual atheists” – the term’s a bit new and vague.

[pianoman1976]

 

The term “deist” means specifically one who believes in one or more gods..

 

The idea of multiple Gods sounds a bit quacky if you ask me. My slant is that there is one God who finds His divine expression through us humans. The road block to this human divinity is the undifferentiated ego. There have been a few who have transcended their ego enough to have a truly spectacular connection to him - these are the few we have built religions around.

 

"Wake up! The Kingdom of Heaven is inside of you bitches!"

-Jesus (paraphrased)

[InfiniteNow]

Do bacteria need God?

[ughaibu]

Do bacteria need God?

 

Does god need endosymbiosis?

[InfiniteNow]

Is there such a thing as a rhetorical answer? :phones:

[johnhuey]

Do bacteria need God?

 

Nope. They have us.