Hi Curtis, This was quite beautiful. Thank you. If you feel comfortable, I would love to hear more about how you came to embrace atheism.
I feel an internal struggle between the idea of a personal God and that I am creating this God for comfort, out of fear, out of lonliness, specialness, etc. I love that you pointed out that this was not an intelectual journey for you. Rather this encompassed your heart and spirit as well. You have given me a lot to ponder. I have felt spiritual without the need for a God. I still feel very connected to other people, animals, nature. I always experience this with confusion. How can I feel this connection yet not believe in God? Don't I need a God to feel connected? I had a conversation a few months back with a good friend and my wife. The friend and I were sharing our feelings/thoughts on God, on having a purpose, etc. My lovely wife chimed in and said all of these self doubts are a result of our belief in a God. A God that has a plan for us (which we never seem to find), a God that has expectations of us (which we can never meet). She said her peace comes from not needing a God. Just being comfortable with herself. Period. Anyway, thanks for sparking my mind. Best, Gary --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with Marek that this discussion has brought up some cool > insights. Thanks to Mr. T for going so deeply into his own perspective. > > I think where I differ with T is that he seems to believe that his > experience of the was in a category beyond thinking. > > T " I intuitively knew that here is no wrong that I can ever do, > > and I had a sense of universal love towards everybody and everything." > > I have had my share of revelations in this life and I understand how > compelling they can feel. I don't doubt that this insight is useful > to T, what I doubt is that it is of a qualitatively different > character than my own "insights". Here T sums up what he sees as my > perspective: > > T > > > Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the > > > > same mystical experiences many of us share in a different > > > > way and strips them of any religious meaning they could > > > > have. In fact he tries to understand them rationally > > > > only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio[nality] highest, > > > > and I always understood this to mean a place where > > > > intellect is 'in control' > > > I only disagree with this aspect of the characterization, that my > insights are gained in this way: T: "he tries to understand them > rationally > > > only," > > This is a common misunderstanding about how certain people come to > atheism. By limiting their faculties to one aspect of our cognitive > and intuitive processes. It makes dismissing the insight much easier > if I am only using one aspect of our ability to understand and all the > deists are using their whole heart and mind. The truth for me is that > my journey into atheism was as complete a transformation and > liberation as I have heard from anyone's posted experiences of > becoming awakened. The sense of freedom and clarity it produced has > effected every area of my life in a positive way. It was a much a > total surrender to the experience of awakening as anyone's religious > awakening, it involved all aspects of my being. > > I don't believe that people who view life from a theological > perspective will "evolve" into atheism. I think some believers in God > think that guys like me will eventually come to believe (in this or > another life) again. Given enough evidence I surely could believe > again, but frankly I am not holding my breath on this one. Just as > most readers here are pretty sure that the Greek gods were made up by > man in a creative literary fashion are unlikely to suddenly decide > that in fact Zeus is real and must be appeased by rituals. > > It took a lot of work on myself to come to where I stand > philosophically today. All aspects of my mind and heart were > involved. I know that most of the poster's here have traveled just as > challenging a road to come to their current POV on these matters and > deserve mutual respect. I don't think that people who interpret their > internal experiences as providing evidence for God are just not using > their rational minds in a sort of arrogant atheist judgment. I know > the appeals and values of theistic interpretations and am the first to > admit that I don't have any ultimate reality figured out. I just know > what is working for me. I assume that you are doing the same, using > your whole being to come up with the most truthful personal > perspective to ride on through our life. There are many ways to > approach life. FFL is a great place to compare notes on what we have > discovered along the way. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > Michael, I have to say that I think the problem > > > is, as you state, in your understanding of atheism. > > > > > > Are the world's 500 million Buddhists atheists? > > > > I don't think so. First of all most of the 500 million Buddhists > > believe in some kind of spiritual entities, they just call them > > differently, like Buddhas or Bodhisatvas. But even strict Theravada > > Buddhists I wouldn't call atheists. The Buddha himself mentioed Brahma > > as the creator God, he just thought that there is something beyond it. > > I don't object to this view at all. Its actually very akin to Advaita. > > Advaita postulates a God, Ishwara, but places him to be part of Maya, > > Illusion. Some people would call Shankaras Advaita a concealed > > atheism, but its very much my position. > > > > > Technically, they are. Their philosophy has no > > > need to postulate a Creator or "another entity" > > > that is in control of their lives. They see life > > > as the eternal interplay of two forces -- karma > > > and free will. Those two forces account for every > > > phenomenon you can name or point to in the universe, > > > without the need for a God or "another entity" to > > > be "responsible" for it. > > > > May I note that ist interesting you call 'free will' a force. And I > > don't think its just a semantic mistake: Thats what Buddhism says, > > everything is just the interplay of forces. And mind you they say the > > same thing about the individual ego, its just a composite, nothing of > > an entity in itself. A composite of different elements (dathus I > > believe) held together by different forces (karma and Samsara). This > > is very much what I say: We are not an entity, we are a play of > > forces. The 'I' is an illusion which takes authorship of this > > interplay, and at the same time, this wrong identification is part of > > the play. There is no I doing it, its part of the play of forces. > > > > > > > At the same time, would you say that Buddhists feel > > > separate from the world, or "independent" from it? > > > > No. > > > > > I certainly wouldn't. My experience has shown me > > > that they tend to feel more of a sense of inter- > > > dependence between all sentient beings than most > > > people who go around talking about their belief in > > > a God and how separate He/She/It is from them. > > > > > > I don't believe God is separate from us. We are totally God or we are > > part of God, either view is ikay with me. > > > > > There is also no inherent belief in atheism that "I > > > am in charge of my life." I'm pretty sure than any > > > New Orleans atheist who lived through Katrina doesn't > > > believe that. What they are in charge of is how they > > > handle what life throws at them. > > > > But thats what I mean. I deny that they are in charge of how to handle > > what life throws at them. I mean that thee are several levels of how o > > look at that. At an immediate level, thats what I would advise anybody > > to do as well: Just act in a responsible manner. Of course. But I > > believe that whether you follow such advise or fool around or how > > exactly you think what is responsible is not really in your hands. Its > > guided by forces not known to you. > > > > > They tend, in my > > > experience, to *take responsibility* for handling > > > those setbacks and challenges, and neither blame > > > God for them nor ask Him/Her/It for help in dealing > > > with them. They just deal with them. > > > > A lot of people blame God, even if they are atheists. Or the blame > > life or whatever. OTOH people who are believers may just act very > > responsible and not blame God, as they feel it to be a test or they > > feel some other ways of support from God. > > > > > Myself, I think it's all about preference. After 40+ > > > years on a spiritual path, I have no need to postulate > > > any kind of a God. I have never encountered a single > > > phenomenon that requires the existence of a God to > > > explain it. Therefore, using Occam's Razor, if a God > > > is not necessary to explain the world I see around me, > > > it is far more likely that there isn't one than that > > > there is one. > > > > I totally understand your argument. When in young adolescence, I would > > call myself atheist as well. I was more a passive atheist or an > > agnostic, but I wouldn't kow at the time. With this I started TM, and > > read the Science of Being, very much swallowing the Vedantic concept > > of the impersonal, very much not taking God references in the book > > serious. But it was experiences that made me accept the God concept. > > Like somebody else here related, I was 'touched' by something in > > meditation along with a sudden certainty that this was pertaining to > > God, and that God actually existed. I simply believed this experience. > > I had more experiences like that, pertaining to a personal Godhead, in > > one case in its unmistakable female expression. Whatever my > > philosophic mindset may be, there is now way I could deny these > > experiences. I couldn't really interpret them any different, because > > personal Godhead is he very content of these experiences. And, at the > > time they were not affirmative of my beliefs but contrary to them. The > > only way I could interpret them differently is to call them delusional > > aberations of the mind. But I believe more my experiences than my mind. > > > > In the same way, that I believe that we are not responsible for our > > actions, that we are guided by an unseen force is again something > > which I experienced, and which again caught me unexpected. I was > > struck by a force beyond my volition at a time of no particular > > aspiration. The force made me feel that there is nothing I could do, > > ie. regarding enlihtenment, that it wasn't in my hands. This was in > > India in Madras 9 yrs back. I was just strolling the streets and busy > > backlanes around my hotel Broadlands, which I now after 9 yrs just > > revisited, and I still love the place. Lateron I came across a > > philosophy affirming this belief. While listening to the man, Ramesh, > > this time in Bombay, in the evening I had a similar experience being > > in a bar. (somebody with whom I lived had dragged me there, and I > > wanted to be nice) I had, in the bar with loud music and smoke, and > > people drinking alcohol, again a stroke of a force, together with a > > sense of detachment and desinterest. I left and went to my sleeping > > place. I intuitively knew that here is no wrong that I can ever do, > > and I had a sense of universal love towards everybody and everything. > > > > > > > But basically, when it comes to God, I just don't care. > > > If there is one, fine; if there isn't, fine. What I > > > believe about the matter doesn't affect God (if there > > > is one) one way or another, and what He/She/It (if > > > there is one) thinks about me doesn't affect me one > > > way or another. > > > > Sure. I understand this very well. I also don't resort to anyone > > particular religion or even philosophy. I have direction, but i > > couldn't tell I am a pure Advaitin etc. Maybe I am a Visishtadvaitin > > to some extent. This is the intellect playing around with ideas. But i > > am interested in almost all religions. The very act of faith attracts > > me. I can not be absolutely sure if there is God/dess, but I love > > Him/Her. My mindset in this way, I suppose is different from yours. > > > > > My perception -- at every level of > > > state of consciousness I have ever experience, which > > > covers quite a range -- is that no God is necessary > > > to explain how the world looks from that POV. So why > > > waste time thinking about one? > > > > Well, I just think very similar. We cannot know 100%, so why waste > > time, so I have decided to believe, and if its just a metaphor for the > > unknowable. At least it makes it easy for me to believe in my own > > experiences. Why should I resort to some logic of some materialist > > philosopher I don't really care about. This I would regard as being > > stuck in the mind. (Of course I don't mean the Buddha) > > > > > Others feel differently, that's fine in my book. They > > > can base their lives on the belief that they aren't > > > in control of them all they want. And guess what...if > > > that's what you believe, that's what will happen. If > > > you believe that God does everything and that you don't > > > have much of a choice in the matter, you'll probably > > > sit around on your ass most of your life waiting for > > > Him/Her/It *to* do something, to "show you a sign" or > > > "help out" or "take care of these problems for me." > > > > Well, Barry its the other way round. I run around dong things, > > manipulating etc, when I get struck by something showing me that it > > was totally insignificant and I am not in charge. I am not, you are > > not, nobody is. > > > > > I call it the "Beam me up, Scotty" theory of spirit- > > > uality. *Scotty* is in charge, not me. It's all up > > > to Scotty, and all I can do is praise him and hope > > > that he beams me to the right place. Sorry, not my > > > idea of fun, or of a productive way of living one's > > > life. But your mileage may vary. > > > > Well, it doesn't really matter wo is in charge. Main thing is that its > > not you, because this would enforce your sense of a separate being and > > your sense of authorship. But that you think that way is of course > > Gods will. > > > > > > Curtis is never tired to point out that he regards the > > > > same mystical experiences many of us share in a different > > > > way and strips them of any religious meaning they could > > > > have. In fact he tries to understand them rationally > > > > only, as I believe. Thus he places ratio[nality] highest, > > > > and I always understood this to mean a place where > > > > intellect is 'in control' > > > > > > And, if you are right and he is wrong, > > > > There is no right and no wrong > > > > > that is GOD > > > doing all that. Curtis doesn't have a CHOICE, right? > > > > RIGHT. > > > > > He's just a meat puppet doing the will of God. So > > > it's GOD who is saying these things, according to > > > what you believe, not Curtis. > > > > Correct. > > > > > Curtis, in the view > > > that I think you're trying to promote, *has* no > > > individuality or individual free will with which > > > *TO* say or think any of these things. God is doing > > > it all, is sitting there with His hand up Curtis' > > > shirt using him as a kind of Howdy Doody puppet, > > > throwing His voice and making it seem as if Curtis > > > is saying these things. Right? > > > > I think you are finally getting it ;-) > > > > > I mean, if you really believe the things you're > > > saying, that's the bottom line, right? So by complain- > > > ing about or taking issue with the things that Curtis > > > says, YOU ARE BITCHING ABOUT GOD. > > > > You are falling back here Barry. I am not bitching about God, but God > > is bitching about himself. Its none of my business, I am just doing > > what I can't help doing, as dictated by my experiences, my mental > > disposition, my philosophic outlook, and my eagerness to fool around > > with my mind. Its a disposition, I can't help. And if I can help, it > > will be the result of a spiritual maturity, which is part of a > > development which is again outside of my intellect or any type of > > volition. > > > > > > > My advice to you, given your belief system, is to > > > lighten up, dude...or He might decide to smite you. > > > > Maybe I am less serious than you think > > > > > > My advice to Curtis is to keep thinking for himself, > > > because he obviously still can. > > > > I disagree ;-) > > > > > > > > > [ The preceding was just a fun little rant over > > > coffee, not a real attempt to berate tr3nity or > > > give him any shit. I just find these discussions > > > between people who believe they have no free will > > > and those who believe they do hilarious, espec- > > > ially when those who believe that the "free willer" > > > is using his lack of free will (in their belief > > > system) to express something offensive or wrong. > > > If their belief system is correct, then the person > > > they're criticizing for believing that they are > > > really "in charge" really isn't, and who they are > > > really criticizing is the being that they believe > > > IS "in charge." ] > > > > > >
