Ask a Radical Atheist

Piggy,

Earlier I asked you if the term "atheist mystic" is an oxymoron.

It isn't, but as you hinted it's hard to implement. But what if it wasn't? What if it is something that you could benefit from without compromising your principles?
 
Limbo said:
It isn't, but as you hinted it's hard to implement. But what if it wasn't? What if it is something that you could benefit from without compromising your principles?
Click to expand...

What if my aunt were a bicycle? Then she'd have wheels.
 
Don't you think that such a thing would soften your radical atheism?
 
Limbo said:
Don't you think that such a thing would soften your radical atheism?
Click to expand...

Just to play the Piggy's Advocate for a bit... soften it from what? What if he's correct? What would 'softening' it do?
 
Limbo said:
Don't you think that such a thing would soften your radical atheism?
Click to expand...

Being this oxymoronic thing of an Atheist Mystic hasn't drawn me into the fold of Theism. In fact it carried me away from Theism. The Numinous just won't fit in an exclusive container.
 
There's a difference between softening a radical atheist stance and being "drawn into the fold of theism", if I take your meaning correctly...
 
Last edited:
Limbo said:
There's a difference between softening a radical atheist stance and being "drawn into the fold of theism", if I take your meaning correctly...
Click to expand...

Well, I am a softy. But that's probably more a matter of my personality.

I'm not as rationally oriented as Piggy, but I know Christians who make a big fuss about God as the "Rational Logos," and claim you can't be rational without him. That Platonic stuff doesn't work for me anymore.
 
Apathia said:
I'm not as rationally oriented as Piggy, but I know Christians who make a big fuss about God as the "Rational Logos," and claim you can't be rational without him. That Platonic stuff doesn't work for me anymore.
Click to expand...


Yes but part of the reason for an atheist mysticism is to avoid a religious approach. Mysticism is compatible with any approach, even atheism. A marriage of mysticism with atheism would soften radicalism, if the individual atheist is resourceful and discerning enough to find good sources of information.

Another part of the reason for an atheist approach to mysticism is to combat religious fundamentalism. It would be like pulling the rug right out from under organized religion.

But I digress. The point I'm trying to make is that if Piggy were to become an atheist mystic he would lose his radicalism, while remaining an atheist.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
Why is losing radicalism something to be desired?
Click to expand...

Not "lost" I think, but certainly resisted. Radicalism tends towards various and sundry nastiness like cults of personality, dogmatism, fundamentalism, etc. It is good to have a tiny little taste of extremism, just to shock the mainstream into motion, but you don't want it to take over the whole operation.
 
Piggy said:
The rephrasing doesn't change things.

The fact that there are no core qualities is a real problem.

The fact that I cannot provide you an answer is a symptom of that.

In fact, I put that very challenge before a Straight Dope thread several years ago, and even the believers could not come up with a single agreed-upon quality.

So no, this is not a mere article of faith with me.
Click to expand...

Okay, so lets take the four major religions - abrahamic, Buddhist, taoist, and hindu, and lets see what we can get. Remember, believers are not the best people to ask for unbiased judges on their religion.

First, creation. Buddha is a part of creation, as are those who attained enlightenment, the Jade Emporer was the head of the committee that created the world, JHVH did create the world, as did Brahma

What do they have in common? They all have the capacity to, or by their existence, create the universe.

Now, on the issue of power. Buddha has power over reality, but this world is transitory - its our job to enlighten ourselves out of it. Jade Emporer can do a lot, but has committees to deal with. JHVH is constrained by the fact that his every action must be good.

What do they have in common? Well, each one has virtually unlimited power (so close as to make no difference) inside our universe, even though they may be restrained by extra-universal constraints (other lesser Gods, their omni-benevolence, whatever).

How about knowledge? Well certainly the knowledge for the polytheistic religions isn't perfect. But they can get any piece of knowledge they need through lesser deities. So we gain our third criteria - can obtain any knowledge within the universe.

How about their motivations? JHVH wants to redeem souls, the Hindu Gods all have their own motivations, Buddha is enlightening people to the true (i.e. not our) universe, and Jade Emporer has a zillion little things. Fourth Criteria - has goals outside our universe.

Lifespan? They all agree - the concept is either meaningless, or longer than the universe.

So what do we have?

An immortal being or beings, who have ultimate power within our universe, even if they are constrained by extra-universal forces or internal limitations. They have access to any knowledge they need from within the universe. They have goals and ambitions that are related to the universe, but exist outside of the normal scope.

Is there a reason this definition is unacceptable?
 
GreyICE,

Your post was well thought-out, and yet wrong to a significant degree, based on a simple fact:
"JHVH" has rarely acted, to a significant degree, in a way that we wold generally consider to be "good." Your view of "JHVH" ignores the fact that this particular deity has all the morals and manners of a spoiled 9 year old. At BEST, "JHVH" accepts that humanity can be a subordinate sentience, instead of merely subordinate property.
 
Hokulele said:
I need an expensive white dress first.

And cake and champagne. Lots of cake.
Click to expand...
Oh how very abstinent. You'd lose your radical atheism in front of The Lord?

Me, I was becoming balanced and centrist when I was fourteen you know. In the girls' loos at school.
 
Last edited:
JoeEllison said:
GreyICE,

Your post was well thought-out, and yet wrong to a significant degree, based on a simple fact:
"JHVH" has rarely acted, to a significant degree, in a way that we wold generally consider to be "good." Your view of "JHVH" ignores the fact that this particular deity has all the morals and manners of a spoiled 9 year old. At BEST, "JHVH" accepts that humanity can be a subordinate sentience, instead of merely subordinate property.
Click to expand...

JHVH has never acted like anything, because he doesn't exist. That's neither here nor there. The CONCEPT, which is what is important in pinning a meaning to the word God, is of an omnibenevolent deity.

You can play with the concept of 'hey, look, he's acting really petty right here in the Bible' versus 'God has a view of the long term that is so long that human history pales in comparison, and therefore we may never understand how his actions were beneficial, but we have faith they were' all day long. Of course then you're arguing the motivations of a fictional character with someone who believes in it, so there are bigger problems.
 
GreyICE said:
JHVH has never acted like anything, because he doesn't exist. That's neither here nor there. The CONCEPT, which is what is important in pinning a meaning to the word God, is of an omnibenevolent deity.

You can play with the concept of 'hey, look, he's acting really petty right here in the Bible' versus 'God has a view of the long term that is so long that human history pales in comparison, and therefore we may never understand how his actions were beneficial, but we have faith they were' all day long. Of course then you're arguing the motivations of a fictional character with someone who believes in it, so there are bigger problems.
Click to expand...

:D
The "concept" is of a repulsively spoiled child. You can twist every self-centered act towards your positive view. You can pretend that there is a higher concept involved, or that it reflects a "higher" way of thinking for humanity.
The reality is that either "JHVH" is a sick ****, or the product of a sick society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom