Can an atheist experience 'the spiritual'.

[peter]

The argument of why suffering exists [If god loves us why does he allow us to suffer; If he can't overcome suffering he is impotent, if he can but doesn't he is malevolent] is an old chestnut for sure - but I'm not sure the 'free-will' answer can be quite so easily swept aside. Just lets take it that we all agree on God's existance [briefly] and consider this. Yes - again the argument is 'hackneyed' - but that does not of itself make it invalid. It has lost some power for sure by constant repetition but it still stands up; that for a God to dominate every action of his 'chosen' people [ie us] like some megolamanic pupet-master would be an act of far greater evil than anything we could perpetrate and would be absolutely in keeping with the parent who stifled their own child by not allowing it freedom at the aposite time. We [if you believe] have to be given freedom to make our own mistakes and no 'loving God' could have it otherwise. The argument does stack up.

[Orlion]

Depends, if god is omnipotent and all knowing, it would know how to create a universe free of suffering and with free-will...and would be able to make it so!

If we start saying stuff like, "Well, god can not do what isn't logical..." that puts a limit on his "all" abilities.

So we are faced with two conundrums: god is not guarenteed to be able to do what we would want him to do (so why worship him, if I end up in hell because he can not admit me into heaven because I never got my foreskin cut off?)...

or, things are exactly like he wants them. This calls into question his benevolence or our idea of goodness.

Or the idea that we can understand the desires and motivations of a being that can create a universe are so misguided and pretentious as to be laughable. It would be easier to envision a singular bacteria understanding our motivations than for us to understand how a "god" would act... or that it cares if we lie or drink... or even live or die, be happy or suffer. It would be so beyond human concerns, it would view our cries akin to "crying over spilled milk" if it even spared a minutae of its attention to acknowledge our existence.

[Zarathustra]

Z, would it not be possible for a being of such a different nature from ours to have a higher state of consciousness at all times? To have "a deep sense of connectedness with the universe, as if everything was just as it was supposed to be."? To not have "any resentment, aversion, or displeasure with any aspect of reality."? As though "It was all embraced with the 'holy' YES."? Just because I'm having fun busting your chops (:mrgreen:) doesn't mean I'm not honestly wondering why such a being couldn't see it the same way you do when on psilosybin.

My own response to that quote of Dondarion (Welcome back, Dd) is that I don't believe that, so will not discuss it from that angle. You, Linna, and others can have that conversation, and I hope it brings you joy. But I take my joy in the other side of the coin.

There's a difference between accepting your fate, rejecting the denials that blind us to Evil, and being the entity which created all this suffering for his "pleasure and glorification." If I were to create the universe myself, I would certainly have done it differently. However, I won't let that tempt me to deny reality or my place in it. Just because I can accept things that are beyond my control and which I didn't create in no way gets god off the hook. They WERE within his control and he DID create it (according to myth).

Peter, an omnipotent god can do literally anything, even what sounds to us paradoxical. Thus, there's absolutely no reason why God couldn't create a universe full of beings who FREELY choose to do no evil. Freewill is perfectly compatible with beings who do no wrong. The capacity to do evil can exist even in a place where no one chooses to commit it. The existence of evil is different from the possibility of evil. You don't have to take away the possibility in order to take away the actuality.

God could have simply made better/stronger/purer beings. But the fact that the very first human (according to myth) could not resist temptation shows that god made extremely weak creatures for his "glorification" in "his image." He didn't have to do that. He could have made us stronger, without violating our will in the slightest. For instance, my son has the freedom to commit all sorts of crimes, even murder. I couldn't stop him if he were determined. But I raised him right, so I know he wouldn't do this. Did I violate his freewill by impressing upon him how important it was to do the right thing? No. Is god a shitty teacher who just can't convey his point with enough severity to make it stick? Why am I a better father than our Heavenly Father? I'm just a mortal man. Surely an infinitely wise/powerful being could have got the point across and explained the consequences to the entire race if Adam didn't listen.

There's absolutely no need for the actuality of evil in the universe. And there's certainly no need for evil to be as severe as it is. I wouldn't leave a bunch of children in charge of our nuclear arsenal, for instance, telling them "don't push the button of Good and Evil," merely because it's wrong to violate their freewill. They can be free on the playground, and experience all the moral quandaries suited to their current level of growth. It's mind-bogglingly irresponsible to put the fate of an entire race, and the existence of Evil itself, in the hands of such naïve, childlike beings as Adam and Eve. Just because they must have the ability to choose doesn't mean damning the entire race should have been one of their possible choices. Why is god more irresponsible than a reasonable adult?

[Zarathustra]

One more point about the problem of evil and how it supposedly "glorifies god" to make such an evil place:

Won't we still have freewill in Heaven? And if so, doesn't that mean we could turn Heaven into a cesspool just as easily as earth? We won't suddenly become more virtuous and less flawed, merely because we're living on a cloud. (heh) Won't people still want to rape? Who wouldn't like a piece of angel ass? I bet they all look like Victoria Secret models.

How about disease? Mass extinctions? Will all those things be absent in Heaven? Well, it wouldn't be very Heavenly if they weren't. So the question arises, if freewill and crappy 'acts of god' are necessary for his 'glorification and pleasure' on earth, then why not also in Heaven? If there can exist a place that is even MORE godlike without all the suffering and evil (i.e. Heaven), then there is no logical reason to suggest that all the suffering in the universe is at all necessary for god's 'glorification and pleasure.' In fact, if our Purpose is to leave this place and go to Heaven, then why are we here at all? If the Purpose of the universe is to provide a home to people who's destiny is to leave it, then its Purpose makes no sense and is contradictory. The idea that our fate lies beyond the grave make the universe a whole realm of superfluous suffering.

If the idea of a perfect universe violates freewill and god's purpose, then you guys have just talked yourself out of the existence of Heaven. You can't have it both ways. Either suffering and evil are necessary (and thus heaven will contain suffering and evil), or they're not necessary, because there exists a mode of being, and a place to be, that contradicts that claim. Unless god takes away our freewill in Heaven, then you can't use freewill to rationalize evil/suffering, because Heaven is supposedly a place without evil/suffering.

This is the mess you get into when you believe in irrational, superstitious myths.

[Vraith]

; that for a God to dominate every action of his 'chosen' people [ie us] like some megolamanic pupet-master would be an act of far greater evil than anything we could perpetrate and would be absolutely in keeping with the parent who stifled their own child by not allowing it freedom at the aposite time. We [if you believe] have to be given freedom to make our own mistakes and no 'loving God' could have it otherwise. The argument does stack up.

Pretty much all of Z's argument, which gets at most of the problem, is dead on.
Heh...the real world in this thing is kinda like one of his main criticisms of the LC's:
God isn't insisting on free will for our sake and/or out of necessity: S/he/it is intentionally keeping us ignorant and telling us lies...so we don't have "Free will."

All we have is a desperate need to act, and none of the actions are real CHOICES, they are merely blind, random guesses.

Worse than that: in such a place, it will ALWAYS be that we are forced to leap from falsehood to falsehood. Eternally. Because we aren't ignorant because we're mistaken or haven't learned enough yet...we're being kept ignorant on purpose. If it is true that we can't see the truth, it is because pointy sticks are being thrust into our eyes.

May be choice by Av's [and some others] definition of 'we always have a choice'...but it ain't free will.

Perhaps there is some Meta-Law of Universes that we don't yet understand that makes it all necessary somehow. But if that is the case, there must also be one that says every one of us, no matter what, will be free from blame, made whole, and understand that Law/Purpose. We cannot be held responsible for anything. It literally isn't up to us.

Heh...to O's thing on us not being able to understand just like a bacteria can't understand us: perhaps so. But we also don't send down Our Word to the bacteria and expect them to make good moral choices based on shit they can't---even in principle, let alone reality---understand then send them, in their trillions upon trillions, to eternal damnation [after killing them off, of course] for failing.

[aliantha]

Who wouldn't like a piece of angel ass? I bet they all look like Victoria Secret models.

Won't *you* be surprised when all the angels turn out to be male.

I find the analogy of the relationship between a parent and child helpful.

(Fixed your spelling for ya )

Sorry, but this analogy doesn't work for me. Orlion's right: if God were all-powerful, He could make a world where evil doesn't exist. But He didn't. Instead, He's set up this game where humans are beset by (largely culturally-defined) evils at every turn, and expected to withstand them all so they can get some kind of nebulous payoff after they die. And if anyone questions why it's set up that way, the response is a divine version of "Because I said so."

Never mind the fact that it infantilizes adult humans *and* gives them an excuse when they screw up, deliberately or not.

[Orlion]

Supposing that I should have the courage
To let a red sword of virtue
Plunge into my heart,
Letting to the weeds of the ground
My sinful blood,
What can you offer me?
A gardened castle?
A flowery kingdom?

What? A hope?
Then hence with your red sword of virtue.

[Dondarion]

Freedom to choose is a gift. God made our world the way HE/SHE envisioned it, not the way we envision it should have been made. His/her ways are beyond our understanding, and IMHO we should think about giving the benefit of the doubt that the universe's purpose just might be greater and grander than how we have been misusing it.  But because we screw things up, we want to say that God shouldn't have made it so "screw-up-able" in the first place. He/she could have made free will beings that simply exercise perfection all the time, like his son did. Why can't we all be this way from the get go? It's all a set-up to get us in the end, a most dangerous game we can't win, and since quite obviously we're made to lose from the beginning, why does it matter at all? 

Only a heartless God would do this to his creatures. God as creator can only be what his nature is, and that is pure love. He cannot be anything else. To love rightly is to love freely, plain and simple, and that's how we are made. Sin comes into the world when we chose not to love rightly. It's not about one mistake stemming from one man and one woman. Its about the greed and selfishness that comes from man not wanting or needing God, rejecting their creator. And so there must be a separation from the creator because the love that defines him/her has been rejected.   It's easy to say, "Then why did he/she make us even capable of such evils?  It should have been factored in, and so more sugar than salt should have been added to the recipe to sweeten us humans up".  But the recipe is right, the mold is correct, and yet it's a brittle mold because it was made to be tender and pliable. And it is, but that also makes it susceptible to going flat, or growing mold, or plain rotting.  The order of things in creation make this possible, but not absolutely so.  

My mother and father know nothing but love for me, their son, but I could reject them if  I wanted. They, on the other hand, could likely never do the same to me. A parent's love is the most complete and perfect form of love we can know. And yet, they would only wish to have my love in return if it were freely given by me. If I rejected their unconditional love, they would still love me entirely, but I would not deserve to be in union with them. It would be wrong, disordered, and it would be my fault (I am of course assuming normal parent/child relationships here, recognizing its not always this simple with human beings). 

Every human being born into this world is an opportunity for another human being to show love to that person, and thereby reveal God's love for that person. God works through people, that's how he chooses to reveal himself.  We are in his image and likeness, which means he is in each of us, and we really can know what that's supposed to look like, especially by the example of his son.  Every innocent child shows us this as well.  To say God could have made us one way or another way because he had the capacity to do it might be true. But this is the way he chose, and I am willing to accept that it must be for reasons higher than our understanding. 

And yes, free will undoubtedly exists in Heaven, but likely not in the way we know it here on earth. We would no sooner wish to enter Heaven with a shred of evil or even selfish motivation in our loins as we would ever want to tip a disabled person out of his wheelchair. It would not enter our minds to do such a thing, and it will not enter our minds to misuse our free will in Heaven.  We will of course have perfect freedom, but we all know deep down that what we really want from this freedom is what's good and right for ourselves and each other, in the spirit of fellowship and love.

Orlion/Stephen Crane wrote:

"What? A hope? Then hence with your red sword of virtue"

What else do any of us have but hope? We take many plunges in this world based on hope, a job, a marriage, a surgery. We place an intrinsic value on these things and so we say they are worth the plunge. I personally think that hope in an afterlife is worth the plunge of (at least the attempt at) virtue.

[JIkj fjds j]

And yes, free will undoubtedly exists in Heaven, but likely not in the way we know it here on earth. We would no sooner wish to enter Heaven with a shred of evil or even selfish motivation in our loins as we would ever want to tip a disabled person out of his wheelchair. It would not enter our minds to do such a thing, and it will not enter our minds to misuse our free will in Heaven.  We will of course have perfect freedom, but we all know deep down that what we really want from this freedom is what's good and right for ourselves and each other, in the spirit of fellowship and love.

There seems to me a misconception that Heaven is a static place. I like to think in terms of being afloat in an ocean that is steadily flowing through a bottleneck. Our freewill might be our choice to swim towards the center, or not.
Choosing to go forward toward the center we then eventually surrender our freewill leaving no choice but to go with the flow. Heaven would then be that state of maximum motion - through the bottleneck. The idea that we have the power to affect the ebb and flow of Heaven is absurd.

[Zarathustra]

Freedom to choose is a gift. God made our world the way HE/SHE envisioned it, not the way we envision it should have been made.

You're using circular reasoning. You say that there is purpose in the universe--God's purpose--and when challenged on the problems with this idea (i.e. problem of evil), you explain these away in terms of God's alleged purpose, again. You're using the very thing in question to explain that thing. This is not an argument, it is merely preaching.

His/her ways are beyond our understanding, and IMHO we should think about giving the benefit of the doubt that the universe's purpose just might be greater and grander than how we have been misusing it.  

The benefit of doubt? That's an odd way to argue for a dogmatic belief. I doubt your entire world view.

But because we screw things up, we want to say that God shouldn't have made it so "screw-up-able" in the first place.

We're not the only ones screwing up. I mentioned mass extinctions. Why would god bother making billions of species only to have them repeatedly wiped out, killing over 90% of them with asteroids, volcanoes, etc. which he could have easily stopped? Does god take pleasure in watching his creations be smashed to bits? Sin has nothing to do with an asteroid.

And yes, free will undoubtedly exists in Heaven, but likely not in the way we know it here on earth. We would no sooner wish to enter Heaven with a shred of evil or even selfish motivation in our loins as we would ever want to tip a disabled person out of his wheelchair. It would not enter our minds to do such a thing, and it will not enter our minds to misuse our free will in Heaven.  We will of course have perfect freedom, but we all know deep down that what we really want from this freedom is what's good and right for ourselves and each other, in the spirit of fellowship and love.

How do you know how every person will think when they enter Heaven? Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden, when there was no evil in the world. Lucifer sinned in Heaven. Clearly, it's possible for beings with freewill to choose the wrong thing, even in Paradise.

Your response doesn't address the logic of my point. If you believe people will naturally choose to do nothing but good in Heaven, why can't they do the same thing on earth? The people who end up in Heaven won't get there by being better than everyone else. They're just as fallible and imperfect as the rest of us. Repenting and being "saved" doesn't mean you no longer sin, despite your best intentions. It just means you've been granted Grace of God. But Grace doesn't magically transform you into someone who always chooses the right thing.

But my point is: if they can enter Heaven and choose only Good, then earth didn't have to be this way, because people could do the same thing here. So your beliefs about Heaven undermine your rationalizations of the problem of evil on Earth. Your entire world view is a collection of contradictions that undermine the most basic beliefs of your world view. Only blind, unthinking faith (ironically described as "benefit of doubt") can bridge such gaps.

[Fist and Faith]

There seems to me a misconception that Heaven is a static place.

Excellent! I beat Av to it!

”If perfection is stagnation, then heaven is a swamp! And the Is ain’t hardly no swamp-cookie.”

Regarding freewill in Heaven, I believe the story goes that Satan had it. And, obviously knowing that God was a fact, and knowing God personally, Satan chose to not follow God.


I seem to be disagreeing with you a lot lately, Z. One thing, though. I tend to discuss a creator and/or omnipotent being in general terms. I don't often bother with a specific belief system any longer, since, for me, that's putting the cart before the horse. If I find reason to believe there's any kind of creator, then I'll start talking about specific ideas. Sorry to have responded on my terms when you were discussing something specific. We don't disagree on most of those specifics.


In general, though, I don't think we can know that an omnipotent being can do paradoxical things. I don't think we can have a sufficient understanding of paradox or omnipotence to say it is definitely possible. Not that everything that seems paradoxical to us actually is paradoxical, of course. But I'm sure some things are. I think there's no possibility of an omnipotent being drawing a perfect circle that is also a perfect square on a piece of paper with a pencil. I don't think we're backing God, or believers in God, into any logical corner by asking if it could do this, or if it could make a rock so heavy that it could not lift it.

But if you think an omnipotent being can do paradoxical things, why not believe it's possible for the God you're discussing to create this universe in the state it's in, and want our worship? That certainly seems like a paradox to me, yet people say this being exists. (Unless it's only our limited comprehension that doesn't see how it's not a paradox. But, not believing this being exists, I'm not overly motivated to put any effort into making it seem less insane than it seems to be.)

[Dondarion]

Z, I don't see the circular reasoning you are accusing me of making. You challenge why a God would make a world that would allow for evil/sin to ever even be a choice. I say that we can't know the true purpose, but that it doesn't mean there is none. Because I can't explain all the things that go wrong in the playing out of the story of the universe, does not mean there was no good purpose to it from the start. Dying is part of living, and perhaps our creator does not see death by a volcano explosion as an instrinsic evil. It's part of the world in motion. Ours is to do what we can with what we have been given to control. The rest is simply not up to us, and not our fault, as TC and Linden have learned themselves. As Fist suggests, this seems to be an unacceptable paradox, but perhaps it is not a paradox when viewed from the perspective of the Creator. Perhaps the great kindnesses that are elicited in people from natural disasters are what really matter to a creator. It seems so harsh and wrong, and we have no explanation. And yet amazing things do come from these stories, things that move people to care for one another in profound ways that are truly super-human. Love and compassion become the tantamount motivation of existence if but for a brief time and space, and the rest of the human race is drawn to it. These opportunities for charity teach us what we are supposed to be about. The rest is not up to us.

As for heaven and free will, I am only saying that I believe free will remains in heaven of course, but that those in heaven would not wish to choose to sin and do evil. There is nothing inconsistent about the ability for one to sin on earth, and what one may chosse to do in heaven. Keep in mind it is neaven we are are peaking of, not earth. The temptations of this world will have likely passed from us, and we will not be drawn toward anything that would distract us from the light. I suppose if we were to still reject that, then we could fall. All I know is what St. Paul tells us, "Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, what God has ready for those who love him". It would be nice to have all that here on earth right now of course, but that's apparently not our purpose. Sorry if I can't explain why. Perhaps it was the plan if sin hadn't entered the world, but it has entered and its effects are all around us. Our controllable purpose is to allow God to work in our lives here on earth, and that way heaven is kind of among us, and then we suddenly recognize that while we are certainly in the world, we do not have to be fully of the world.

[JIkj fjds j]

I take a lot from the line in The Lord's Prayer: "There will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven".

[Dondarion]

Vizidor wrote:

I take a lot from the line in The Lord's Prayer: "There will be done on earth as it is in Heaven".

This comes off sounding as if we have an edict that whatever is done in Heaven is done on earth. And yet, the prayer does not read that way. The line actually reads: "Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in Heaven", and the placement of the commas matter. It is a prayer (a request or plea) for the grace to carry out the will of God here on earth as it is carried out in heaven. And since this cannot be done by human strength alone, it is a prayer for grace, which is freely given to those who ask with sincere humility. It is a paradox, which is always the best kind of truth.

[JIkj fjds j]

I expect this will depend on how you see Heaven.
For me, I find great peace of mind to think we're already in Heaven. Maybe not wholeheartedly with God, but as the saying goes: God is all around.

It wouldn't surprise me to know you disagreed with this viewpoint, it's just that I believe we shouldn't need more than we already have, no matter how that might be.
On the other hand, I would agree this viewpoint may sound affectatious, after all it's easy for me to say, I'm not living in a war zone, or stuck in hospital with a terrible disease, or any number of other hellish situations.

However this may be, I can still look around me and feel glad. This has to better than walking through life with a ginormous question mark overhead, don't ya think!

[Dondarion]

V: I love that you can find heaven in the every day. Jesus said: "Behold, the kingdom of heaven is suddenly upon you". I think he meant himself in the presence of his witnesses, but nevertheless I agree it is all part of the journey. It starts here on earth, and each person has a different starting place, some early in life, some late (God willing). But the journey is a continuum from one's own particular point of revelation onward, IMHO. "The kingdom of heaven is upon you".... I like that notion. If we all got behind that and cooperated with that possibility/reality, perhaps heaven on earth wouldn't be an ideal, it would be truly tangible. At least I feel that's what the design somehow must be, to begin with the here and now.

[Fist and Faith]

I think you'll like this, Z!
www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/step ... ailsignout

And to add to something he touches on, I'll quote an old post of mine.

There's a fantasy book, The Kundalini Equation, by Steven Barnes, where one character is doing a lot of searching, questioning, etc, about life, God, etc. During an appearance, a woman in the audience asked, "Mr. Patanjal, how does it feel to know that you are going to burn in hell?" And he answered:

"Madame, the divine force which you believe in and the one in which I believe are obviously two different beings. If in a sincere quest for understanding and knowledge I have erred, I am deeply sorry, and await a sign from the Almighty that will teach me the error of my ways. I simply believe in the virtues of sincere intellectual curiosity. An eagerness to use the mind and feelings that God himself gave me to inquire into mysteries rather than merely accept the explanation othat other men have passed down through the years. If for this I will be cast into fires everlasting, then God is indeed the malign thug of which Mark Twain wrote, and his hell could certainly be no more insufferable than his heaven."

[aliantha]

There's a fantasy book, The Kundalini Equation, by Steven Barnes, where one character is doing a lot of searching, questioning, etc, about life, God, etc. During an appearance, a woman in the audience asked, "Mr. Patanjal, how does it feel to know that you are going to burn in hell?" And he answered:

"Madame, the divine force which you believe in and the one in which I believe are obviously two different beings. If in a sincere quest for understanding and knowledge I have erred, I am deeply sorry, and await a sign from the Almighty that will teach me the error of my ways. I simply believe in the virtues of sincere intellectual curiosity. An eagerness to use the mind and feelings that God himself gave me to inquire into mysteries rather than merely accept the explanation othat other men have passed down through the years. If for this I will be cast into fires everlasting, then God is indeed the malign thug of which Mark Twain wrote, and his hell could certainly be no more insufferable than his heaven."

See that? Two different beings! That's exactly what Gus diZerega said in the thing I posted in that other thread!

[Orlion]

Orlion/Stephen Crane wrote:

"What? A hope? Then hence with your red sword of virtue"

What else do any of us have but hope?

Life. You know, that thing we are living, that is right there.

We take many plunges in this world based on hope, a job, a marriage, a surgery. We place an intrinsic value on these things and so we say they are worth the plunge.

I would have to disagree. A job has proof, a marriage has proof, surgery produces proof of its effectiveness. In either case, we are basing our "hope" on actual observations, actual proof. We do not need to have "faith" that a good job will make us financially stable, or that a good surgeon can do more for a tumor than prayer.

Instead, the "religious hope" is just that: a mere hope with no justification and no satisfaction or realization. Which brings me to the next point:

I personally think that hope in an afterlife is worth the plunge of (at least the attempt at) virtue.

Since hope is capricious and has little to no bearing on our lives and their consequences: why choose such a lame hope? Why do people choose a hope that they will spend eternity praising god with the petty addition that those that offend them will get their comeuppance in hell? Can't we do better? Can't we "dream better dreams" than bliss being dependent on random ritual genital mutilation, ritual bathing , or ritual mea culpas?

[Vraith]

We take many plunges in this world based on hope, a job, a marriage, a surgery. We place an intrinsic value on these things and so we say they are worth the plunge.

Instead, the "religious hope" is just that: a mere hope with no justification and no satisfaction or realization. Which brings me to the next point:

I personally think that hope in an afterlife is worth the plunge of (at least the attempt at) virtue.

Since hope is capricious and has little to no bearing on our lives and their consequences: why choose such a lame hope?

Heh...on the first part, the problem is that one thing is "hope"---it may be a leap from things, but it is at least connected to them---but the term you want for "religious hope" is "wish." Pure "magic," no connections.

On the other part: Agree it's a lame hope...but in addition, if peeps are being virtuous for any reason, wish, or hope other than the fact that they personally believe it is virtuous, it ain't virtue. [just like that old formulation that believing in god was the "best bet" cuz of worst outcomes if, by chance, s/he does...isn't really believing.].