An atheist question

Germane to any discussion of atheists/agnostics is their personal lexicon. Within the lexicon of believers in God/divinity are the words 'grace' and 'epiphany' which are taken to mean something that originates externally to the recipient.....i.e. supernatural, etc. If one does not believe in God/the divine can such concepts be a part of their lexicon? In other words, can there be any acknowledgment of anything that is external to themselves?

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

The Highest is All, and is available to all, of and within itSelf.

This is it. Exactly. One does not need to believe (nor disbelieve) in god or gods to understand and live this eternal truth.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Molearner

Germane to any discussion of atheists/agnostics is their personal lexicon... In other words, can there be any acknowledgment of anything that is external to themselves?

Sure. I believe in a supernatural Spirit reality. I believe in a supernatural higher self that exists in that Spirit reality. But I don't need to believe in a singular external god-being that created all that. Perhaps we're the ones who created it. Perhaps we're the supernatural source of our supernatural experiences. Or maybe everything just IS and ALWAYS WILL BE, and THAT'S the supernatural mystery. Nothing more to ponder because everything just IS.

Regardless, as I said, none of the above makes any difference whatsoever as far as my individual, self-realization journey is concerned. I don't need to believe or disbelieve in any of it. My spiritual focus is solely on myself and my individual moral self-development, here in this world.

[Baile]

The whole atheist/believer discussion is in fact a glimpse into how religious doctrine has contributed to a false narrative whereby individual beliefs are judged to be worthwhile and spiritual, or not.

Someone who believes in god, is considered spiritual.
Someone who doesn't, is considered to be a skeptic, or nihilist, or something worse.

But the belief itself is neither spiritual nor un-spiritual.
Spiritual is simply how we act as moral beings in life.

Someone who believes in god can act in an immoral, un-spiritual way.
Just as someone who doesn't believe in god, can act with a highly-evolved degree of moral veracity; i.e. interacts with life in a spiritual way.

[r6r6]

1} "U"niverse aka God

.....1a} There exists metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and they are not spatial. No spatial things

............1a1} There exists absolute{ non-variable } and relative{ variable } truths ergo absolute and relative existence.

............1a2} I-verse ie. ego.

--------------------------line-of-demarcation------------------------------------

.......1b} There exists metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space. No things in this location of space.

........1c} There exists occupied space. These things are physical/energy/time/motion and have an associated sine-wave ^v-/\/\/\/\/\/-v^.

The above are the primary set of existence aka God.

Our finite, occupied space Universe--- aka Uni-V-erse ----is a subset of the greater set of 1, 1, 1aa, 1b and 1c.

None have offerred any rational, logical common sense, that, adds to or invalidates my above givens as stated.

I-verse ie. ego allows for expression of absolute truths and perversions of relative truths.

The greatest perversion of ego/I-verse, is the statement 'I am God'. This is one of the greatest perversions because the two are diametric <------> opposites.

I exist within my environment.

I and my environment together, are God/Universe/"U"niverse.

Fuller states it his way.

Universe is everything including me,
Environment is everything excluding me.

Spirit-1{ ,metaphysical-1 } is spirit-of-intent ergo mind/intellect/concept,

---------line-of-demarcation-----------------------------------

Spirit-2 is fermions, bosons and any aggregate combination thereof ex biologicals

Spirit-3{ metaphyscial-3 }is gravity---positive shaped geodesic space,

Spirit-4{ metaphysical-4 } is dark energy---negative shaped geodesic space.

See link to torus having positive, flat and negative curvature shape.
https://www.google.com/search?q=posi...w=1340&bih=594

[Starman]

Originally Posted by Premier

I met an atheist, but that person still believe in energy, and vibrations. He would read book, and read positive stuff to raise his vibrations.
Now I wonder what it's called when a person believe in energy, and believe he's atheist.

I have often wondered why there is a need to label people. Atheist means without a thesis; primarily a thesis about life, but we should understand that not all atheist are the same, nor do all atheists believe the same thing. Atheists have as much variety about life among them as so-called "believers." So all atheists are not the same.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Molearner

Germane to any discussion of atheists/agnostics is their personal lexicon. Within the lexicon of believers in God/divinity are the words 'grace' and 'epiphany' which are taken to mean something that originates externally to the recipient.....i.e. supernatural, etc. If one does not believe in God/the divine can such concepts be a part of their lexicon? In other words, can there be any acknowledgment of anything that is external to themselves?

Hi Molearner, (also addressing or concurring with points made by Baile and Starman),


Those are good points.

However, if a personal lexicon is germane to the discussion, then necessarily, so are associated definitions, metaphysical premises, and assumptions on which that 'personal' (and therefore relative to other persons) lexicon is based…all of which is subject to question from those different points of view.

For instance, even if atheists do not accept a Supreme Personal Deity, many do accept something essentially ‘divine’ in as much as it is an ultimate ‘intelligence’, etc., a universal force/consciousness, etc. - the Height of Nature, etc. - which is seen as an equivalent, even if conceptualized differently by personal preference. ‘God’ in the atheist conception, is often a power/force/consciouness/universal being - just not necessarily ‘Personal’.
Rather, it is seen as Impersonal.

Right away this suggests a divergence in belief in which one conception of the ‘Highest’ is not necessarily mutually exclusive of the other, except perhaps in the prejudicial preference of one belief holder in contrast to that of others - and that often becomes a problem when there is an assumption - or a belief - that different individually held beliefs are necessarily mutually exclusive, and not simply various available forms of what are essentially the same or equivalent.

As such, a believer in a Supreme Personal Deity may simultaneously still hold the belief in Immanence in which case ‘grace’ and ‘epiphany’ may be seen as resident and likewise emergent from within (the same reality), and not exclusively ‘external’ to personal individual being, as with dualist conceptions.

Further, according to that premise, where one conception of ‘God’ is extrinsic to ‘personal self’ and therefore ’supernatural’ - in another conception or belief, it is intrinsic, immanent and therefore extraordinarily natural.

Certain ‘non-dual’ conceptions go so far as to assert that there really is no ‘personal individual self’, only One Impersonal Self; everything else an ‘illusion’.

In the agnostic view, there is fundamental question, doubt, uncertainty, or implicit negation of the premise of any kind of higher, organized, intelligent Superior consciousness - no matter what form, or how available. The predominant view is: I see all kinds of dichotomies on the surface as the whole of reality - good and bad coexisting and I can’t reconcile them, because what would reconcile those dichotomies is not apparent to me in an obvious rational way, therefore I’m 'indecisive' on the issue.


Finally, 2 pertinent quotes on the subject:

The Atheist is God playing at hide & seek with Himself; but is the Theist any other? Well, perhaps; for he has seen the shadow of God and clutched at it.

- Sri Aurobindo, Essays Divine and Human

We may not know him as God, we may know him as Nature, our Higher Self, Inifnity, some ineffable goal. It was so that Buddha approached Him; so approaches him the rigid Adwaitin. He is accessible even to the Atheist. To the materialist He disguises Himself in matter. For the Nihilist he waits ambushed in the bosom of Annihilation.

- Sri Aurobindo, Essays Divine and Human

~ J

Originally Posted by Baile

Sure. I believe in a supernatural Spirit reality. I believe in a supernatural higher self that exists in that Spirit reality. But I don't need to believe in a singular external god-being that created all that. Perhaps we're the ones who created it. Perhaps we're the supernatural source of our supernatural experiences. Or maybe everything just IS and ALWAYS WILL BE, and THAT'S the supernatural mystery. Nothing more to ponder because everything just IS.

.

Baile,

As you might guess, I dismiss the possibility that we are the supernatural source of our supernatural experiences. If this were the case, logic seems to inform me that we would have the ability, at will, to replicate these experiences of grace and/or epiphany. This might be a poor example but learning to ride a bicycle is an epiphany of sorts. In this case, once learned or discovered, we are able to replicate this without fail. In my experience, this has not been my case in regards to grace and/or epiphany. Because of this, at this present time, I am led to conclude that the source is extraneous.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

[indent][color="Navy"]For instance, even if atheists do not accept a Supreme Personal Deity, many do accept something essentially ‘divine’ in as much as it is an ultimate ‘intelligence’, etc., a universal force/consciousness, etc. - the Height of Nature, etc. - which is seen as an equivalent, even if conceptualized differently by personal preference. ‘God’ in the atheist conception, is often a power/force/consciouness/universal being - just not necessarily ‘Personal’.
Rather, it is seen as Impersonal.

Right away this suggests a divergence in belief in which one conception of the ‘Highest’ is not necessarily mutually exclusive of the other, except perhaps in the prejudicial preference of one belief holder in contrast to that of others - and that often becomes a problem when there is an assumption - or a belief - that different individually held beliefs are necessarily mutually exclusive, and not simply various available forms of what are essentially the same or equivalent.

]

Jyotir,

Thanks for your response. This pretty much defines reality. I understand that the seeming divergence that we witness are centered around the problem of nomenclature. I understand the reluctance to identify with labels which, for some, is paramount to guilt by association. i.e. not wishing to be associated or linked with those that use specific labels because of their obvious hypocrisy who fall short of upholding the ideals of that which they profess. I am comforted by those who might reject my personal nomenclature if I can perceive that they exhibit a certain amount of humility. In the end, I can accept that they are on a viable pursuit of the spiritual, not minding their professed insistence that it is entirely personal.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Premier

I met an atheist, but that person still believe in energy, and vibrations.

He would read book, and read positive stuff to raise his vibrations.

Now I wonder what it's called when a person believe in energy, and believe he's atheist.

This is called logic. Sometimes I don't like the position of the theist or the atheist. Both are different then mine.

I certainly don't agree with some forms of theistic identification and it's logic. Logic is what we see. We probably do such a bad job explaining God, no wonder there are so many atheists and agnostics around but they have valid questions.

Energy and vibrations are known though, god is not. One is merely not denying that part which is known. It's about keeping an open mind. Many time one finds if one softens their position, others do to.