An Intellectual's Christian Narrative: A Non-Magical Alternative (pope, Buddhism, myth)

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by pneuma

Well here is the thing for me Gaylen, when I first read about mystic's mystical experience I also was skeptical. however the more I spoke with mystic the more I found out just how close our understanding lined up. Sure there are differences (when isn't there)but for the most part we agree with each other. Now I did not have this mystical experience mystic had; my understanding came via the study of the bible believing that every thought must be taken captive to Christ.

So for me the question came down to this:

How can I deny mystics mystical experience when he came to almost the same conclusions as I did via studying the bible?

Answer: I can't.

you bring up a great point.

I bet we all agree on most things. we may differ in how to carry out some things, like I don't agree with sacrifice to the point of self destruction. But i understand that's just me, and those that think like me, its not a "universal truth" to me.

I think we all diverge from the "deny anything-er's" and the "my god only-er's". we don't have to join the black/white, my way only, right/wrong types. we can live in peace. cluster-b's don't have to tell us what to do. we don't have to let cluster-B"s bully others with their beliefs.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

Thats MPDs club ask him.

no, I am asking you.

what do you weight "jesus literally rose and flew in to heaven" against?

in fact, I am not even sure if you believe that or not to tell ya truth. silly me, sorry.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You have a genuine gift for explanation, Gaylen. The country song reference is particularly apt. I identify as a believer in Christ as the embodiment of God's true nature in His human consciousness and the first among us to achieve perfect resonance with God. He is our exemplar of who we are to become. Thanks to the rules here, that makes me a Christian. But you are correct, Gaylen, I have significant issues with much of the "religious" trappings that have been built up around Him. Tzaph seems to forget that I was an atheist before my experience. Since I experience the connection with what I have identified as Christ's consciousness, I believe that He abides with us within our consciousness as the born again Spirit of Jesus called the Comforter sent in His name. (I will not elaborate my understanding of the significance of names as cognitive constructs within consciousness.) In short, I identify as Christian but seek to explain my alternative interpretation of His significance to God that does not rely on magical thinking (which predominates in religions).

= your religious beliefs

[Hannibal Flavius]

Many people identify as a Christian, but this has little to do with the first Christianity which was a sect of Judaism for over 100 years.


Pagan, lawless Christians having a 2000 year record of persecuting and killing Jews and Gentiles identify as Israel doesn't make them Israel. What a person does with his hands speaks louder than what he says he is. You take a Gentile who teaches against the commandments of God and whose worship system is derived from Babylon, and he is trying to identify with a book written to gentile converts to Judaism and claiming to be a part of a covenant Messiah brings to only Judah and Ephraim.


He is claiming and identifying as a Christian when he hasn't the slightest thing in common with the first Christianity, and his entire worship system was founded in anti-Semitism when the likes of Constantine and Martin Luther made God illegal.


These same Christians who killed all the true converts to Judaism and who made keeping the commandments of God an abomination are the ones who say they speak for the first Christianity when they do not.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by granpa

dog·ma
ˈdôɡmə
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

So where do you draw the line between good dogma and bad Dogma?

Originally Posted by mensaguy

So, since you're talking about Atheists & dogma, using your own definition of dogma, what is their set of principles and who is the incontrovertibly true authority who laid them down?

I don't think that this was ever addressed very well. Some atheists are "dogmatic" in the loose sense of not being quite as self-critical of their own assumptions as they ought to be, and not really being as open to evidence as they think they are, but the core concept that presumably ties all atheists together - the belief that there is no God (or, at least, that there is probably no divine Omni-dude type of creator as outlined in numerous holy books) - is essentially non-dogmatic insofar as there is no authority saying that the non-existence of God is incontrovertibly true. The atheist belief is generally arrived at via something more like a "faith in logic" and/or "faith in the scientific method" etc. So there is an atheist "faith" of sorts, but it is more like faith in a "process of obtaining knowledge" rather than faith in the existence of a particular Conscious Being or faith in the inerrancy of a particular holy book.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

I don't think that this was ever addressed very well. Some atheists are "dogmatic" in the loose sense of not being quite as self-critical of their own assumptions as they ought to be, and not really being as open to evidence as they think they are, but the core concept that presumably ties all atheists together - the belief that there is no God (or, at least, that there is probably no divine Omni-dude type of creator as outlined in numerous holy books) - is essentially non-dogmatic insofar as there is no authority saying that the non-existence of God is incontrovertibly true. The atheist belief is generally arrived at via something more like a "faith in logic" and/or "faith in the scientific method" etc. So there is an atheist "faith" of sorts, but it is more like faith in a "process of obtaining knowledge" rather than faith in the existence of a particular Conscious Being or faith in the inerrancy of a particular holy book.

dogmatic means this (see definition next line), and yes we see plenty of atheists frequently being dogmatic on these boards

dog·mat·ic
inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true

it's like the word "proselytize" the irreligious don't like that word either even though they engage in that behavior freely and frequently. Same with being "dogmatic." any perjorative word used applies equally to all groups because it is human behavior we are describing, and "atheists are a diverse group" as well as "the religious are a diverse group" using the Trans principle previously established on this thread.

[Tzaphkiel]

from this thread

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

..... On the other hand, it is certainly possible for some advocates of science to go catapult themselves over the critical thinking target and land back in the thickets of dogmatic thinking. I think that virtually every atheist and/or science-lover would agree, in principle (and they general do agree, when the principle is explicitly stated) that the findings of science are mostly matter of probability rather than absolute certainty, and most will agree that there are limits to they types of truths that science can confirm. Logic and science are not (logically cannot be) entirely self-justifying. Brute facts and human values play a role most scientists agree cannot be fully explained by objective empirical means. (Indeed, brute facts can't be "explained" at all. Discovered, yes, but not explained in terms of any deeper truths.) Atheists shoot themselves in the foot when they get too exuberant and say things that are too easily interpreted as a sort of rationalist or scientific dogmatism. I would advice all atheists to consistently remind themselves and others that most ideas are not encased in gold-plated certainty. .....

[Tzaphkiel]

also from this thread

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

...Some atheist zealots can be as bull-headedly dogmatic and uncritical as any religious zealot. That's just the nature of human diversity. Every group has a spectrum, with wide fringes of outliers at both ends. That's just a given that all critical-thinking people recognize. Indeed, it is so obvious that it often "goes without saying" and is, thus, often unsaid for the sake of brevity (especially in a short-post dominated setting like this). But for the sake of your own polemics, you keep casting people in a light that suggests that they have no clue about this. And you are not entirely unjustified in this because, in the heat of the moment, for the sake of brevity, we often do, in fact, say things that - when quoted - make us look like idiots. I find this annoying on the one hand, but also rather helpful because you are forcing explicit clarity about things that, in our minds, are implicitly assumed.

It's only when these feelings transform into proclamations about absolute, ultimate truths that seem to conflict with moral common sense, well-verified scientific theories, or our own intuitions that we tend to gasp and say "Wait! That's crazy!"......Ideally the non-believer responses would be calm, rational, and compassionate but, realistically, people are people. Some will get pissed and say hurtful things.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof

(1) A willingness to discover that some of your beliefs and assumptions need to be changed.

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

...we see plenty of atheists frequently being dogmatic on these boards

I agree that many atheists are dogmatic, but I would suggest that to the extent that they are dogmatic, they are failing to "walk the walk" that most of them aspire toward.

The word 'atheism' of course just means "does not believe in the existence of God" so it is perfectly possible for an atheist to dogmatically refuse to believe in the existence of God. An atheist can, in principle, be just as dogmatically close-minded about evidence favoring the existence of God as many theists are dogmatic about evidence against the existence of God. But I still think that the vast majority of atheists "feel an ambiance" that is essentially opposite of the "ambiance" that most theists feel. The vast majority of atheists see themselves as being open to logical arguments and empirical evidence. (This, in fact, is rooted in what I've been describing as faith in logic and the scientific method, and can also be thought of as faith in what I previously referred to as "Criteria #1" in my attempt to characterize critical thinking.)

A devout atheist who dogmatically refuses to believe in God is failing to live up to her own self-ascribed faith in Criteria #1.

The great majority of theists, however, are rooted in the principle of faith in God, such that there is really no conscious concerted effort to deeply question the existence of God. As far as Criteria #1 is concerned, the existence of God is not really on the negotiating table at all. Indeed, they sometimes express fear of losing their faith.

Thus:

A devout theist who loses faith in God fails to live up to her own self-ascribed faith in the preferred non-applicability of Criteria #1 to the question of God's existence.

In other words:

For most atheists, adherence to Criteria #1 concerning questions of God's existence is a success in terms of the ambiance they generally favor.

For most theists, adherence to Criteria #1 concerning questions of God's existence is a failure in terms of the ambiance they generally favor.

To put it another way:

The generally preferred ambiance of atheism is skepticism* about God.
The generally preferred ambiance of theism is faith in God.

[BTW, just for clarity: Faith is not necessarily a feeling of certainty. Faith is an acceptance of something as being true, even if there are some feelings of uncertainty.]

*Keeping in mind that 'skepticism' (from the point of view of atheists) does not mean "dogmatic unbelief" - rather, it means "open to alternative possibilities" or "I'm not sold on that idea." I.e., we are dealing with probabilities, not absolutes. When I say "I don't believe in God" I am generally saying "I think that God probably does not exist." Even a rabid atheist like Richard Dawkins does not say "God absolutely does not exist" but rather he says "It is highly improbable that God exists." (Keeping in mind that if some particular theist ascribes properties to God that are logically inconsistent, then many atheists will say "that conception of God is certainly wrong" instead of just "probably wrong". This stems from their faith in logic insofar as logic is virtually the only realm in which concepts like "proof" and "certainty" apply.)

[nateswift]

Yes, there IS a difference between "dogma" and "dogmatic." To be "dogmatic" does not require formal "dogma," just a strong opinion.