Spreading the word

Originally posted by bbarr
I will assume that by "your dogma" you mean "your best judgement". Thanks, you too!

May Atheo bless you and keep you.

May Atheo make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you.

May Atheo lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

Originally posted by Red Night
Yes and others too.

So, to your mind, all beliefs are exactly equal?

I never want you as my physician.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So, to your mind, all beliefs are exactly equal?

I never want you as my physician.

I'm not a doctor.

But, yes all beliefs are equal. It is the height of conceit to believe that your god is better than others.

There is only one God, so we must all be worshipping the same one.

Originally posted by Red Night
Well, one possibility is that God exists in the collective consciousness of humanity.

This could be closely related to the concept that God is an invention of man.

Another possibility is that God is the immutuable laws of the universe which we as humans have only begun to remotely understand.

I think my point is that an irrational and fundamenta ...[text shortened]... hat...an irrational belief.

Also, arguing for the premacy of one over the other is devisive.

I’m trying to put this together with our discussion (as I recall it) on one of the other threads. Is the following a fair statement?—

You are using the term “God” to refer to whatever there might be that transcends our ability to adequately conceptualize (whether natural or supernatural, personal or impersonal); and that your preference for that term does not reflect an affirmation of the existence of any kind of deity of conventional theism, but rather your intention to not preclude the existence of such a being.

I seem to recall from our prior exchange that you concluded that the word “God” is used across so many spiritual traditions that, even though it may be problematic, it is less tradition-specific than any other term you have found (for example, my own use of terms such as tathata or Tao).

Does that get at it somewhat?

Originally posted by Red Night
But, yes all beliefs are equal..

That is the dumbest thing I've heard in months, and I've been grading undergraduate papers.

Originally posted by vistesd
I’m trying to put this together with our discussion (as I recall it) on one of the other threads. Is the following a fair statement?—

You are using the term “God” to refer to whatever there might be that transcends our ability to adequately conceptualize (whether natural or supernatural, personal or impersonal); and that your preference for that term doe ...[text shortened]... or example, my own use of terms such as tathata or Tao).

Does that get at it somewhat?

That is definitely a fair and reasonable statement.

And I agree that the word God can be problematic.

I'd like to emphasize two points.

1. I want my personal philosophy to be inclusive and not exclusive. I find all religions, philosophies, and belief systems that seek to claim they are correct and therefore all others incorrect to be exclusionary and offensive.

2. I believe that many of the religions, philospophies, and belief systems contain essential moral and ethical rules that are worth preserving.

I've always enjoyed everything you have written and would gladly discuss this with you further.

Originally posted by bbarr
That is the dumbest thing I've heard in months, and I've been grading undergraduate papers.

That is because you want to believe that your belief system is supreme and superior to all others.

I disagree.

I accept that your belief system has as much and as little to offer as that of the most fundamental christian, muslim or satanist.

Originally posted by Red Night
That is because you want to believe that your belief system is supreme and superior to all others.

I disagree.

I accept that your belief system has as much and as little to offer as that of the most fundamental christian, muslim or satanist.

No, I'm committed to the possibility that my beliefs are in error, and I am prepared to revise them in light of new evidence. In other words, I'm epistemically responsible.

It is your claim itself that is idiotic.

Some beliefs are tautologies, others entail contradictions. So some beliefs are unequal in regards to their truth.

Some beliefs are empirically supported, others result from wishful thinking. So some beliefs are unequal in regards to their epistemic justification.

Some beliefs are virtuous, others are vicious. So some beliefs are unequal in regards to their moral status.

Some beliefs lead to success, others to failure. So some beliefs are unequal in regards to the pragmatic reasons in their support.

Pick a dimension of belief assessment, some manner in which beliefs could be unequal, and I will give you an example of two beliefs that are unequal in that manner.

And why on Earth are you talking about my belief system? You have no idea what the content of my system of beliefs is. You mistakenly think you can infer from the fact that one is an atheist that they have some sort of worldview, as though we form a homogenous group. Our worldviews necessarily overlap only to the extent that we have one belief in common: We believe that there is nothing in the world that corresponds to a particular conception of God.

Originally posted by bbarr
We believe that there is nothing in the world that corresponds to a particular conception of God.

Exactly!

Well said.

Originally posted by Red Night
Exactly!

Well said.

So, presumably my belief that there is nothing in the world that corresponds to the concept "invisible goblin in my freezer" is equally dogmatic.

What a maroon. 🙄

Originally posted by bbarr
So, presumably my belief that there is nothing in the world that corresponds to the concept "invisible goblin in my freezer" is equally dogmatic.

What a maroon. 🙄

Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.


Love you neighbor and yourself.

Originally posted by Red Night
That is definitely a fair and reasonable statement.

And I agree that the word God can be problematic.

I'd like to emphasize two points.

1. I want my personal philosophy to be inclusive and not exclusive. I find all religions, philosophies, and belief systems that seek to claim they are correct and therefore all others incorrect to be exclusionar ...[text shortened]... 've always enjoyed everything you have written and would gladly discuss this with you further.

Have you ever read Aldous Huxley’s The Perennial Philosophy? If you haven’t, I think you’d find it interesting.

I disagree that all religious expressions are equal; but the perennial philosophy finds expression in most of them (though it is considered more heretical in some than others). My principal expression has become, for a variety of reasons, Zen Buddhism—but that’s just what it is: my main mode of expression. I am quite comfortable with others as well.

Originally posted by Red Night
Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.


Love you neighbor and yourself.

Well, I believe that hatred only ceases by violence, and since all "beliefs are equal"...

Originally posted by vistesd
Have you ever read Aldous Huxley’s The Perennial Philosophy? If you haven’t, I think you’d find it interesting.

I disagree that all religious expressions are equal; but the perennial philosophy finds expression in most of them (though it is considered more heretical in some than others). My principal expression has become, for a variety of reaso ...[text shortened]... hat’s just what it is: my main mode of expression. I am quite comfortable with others as well.

I like Buddhism and Taoism. I also like some aspects of christianity, johanine thought in particular.

I also like some aspects of zoroastrianism.

I'm sure you understand what I say when I say that making one pre-eminent is somewhat exclusionary. I think that is also a buddhist concept.

Would it be wrong in your mind to extend that concept of acceptance to Atheism and view that as a religion, belief system, or philosophy akin to all the others?

As far as viewing them all as equal, I had trouble with that. I was naturally inclined to favor some like buddhism and christianity over others like mormonism and islam (not to mention satanism and scientology), but I realized that I had to either embrace them all or none.

I'm not saying I agree with everything that every religion/philosophy espouses. I'm just saying that all must contain elements of the truth and that it is evil to dismiss the beliefs of another.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

Originally posted by vistesd
Have you ever read Aldous Huxley’s The Perennial Philosophy? If you haven’t, I think you’d find it interesting.

I disagree that all religious expressions are equal; but the perennial philosophy finds expression in most of them (though it is considered more heretical in some than others). My principal expression has become, for a variety of reaso ...[text shortened]... hat’s just what it is: my main mode of expression. I am quite comfortable with others as well.

I'll try to find that book by Huxley.

The only Huxley I ever read starts with the clock striking 13.