crukster

I'm not disputing that someone could be Jewish and UU, or Muslim and UU or whatever so forth, and I agree one could probably be Sufi and UU.

I don't however believe someone could truthfully be atheist and UU.

Because what many atheists in this thread have agreed on, is that atheist is the word for the religious world's opinion of you. Well surely if you start tackling ideas which are common to you and them, whilst following UU, they would call you a Unitarian Universalist.

atheism is irrelevant. Ultimatly either you're for theism or against.

That's a good joke even I can relate to that lol.



I don't either, not person anyway. And not the idea, only the Truth upon which it's based. I'm talking about the Universal energy of all existence. I know those terms are crude and generic. I'm hardly an expert on the idea, and tbh it's mostly self-formed. What I am getting at is there is a Universal commonality to all existence, or else we wouldnt be able to converse like this, we wouldnt even see each other, perceive, let alone understand. It'd be nothing, or at least, sole; alone.

Maybe that is our ultimate fate. Who knows.

In there here and now though, we are all here, we are all now. What I believe is God is the collective energy, will and power of us all. And capability; promise.

God is the eternal Sum of an evergrowing equation.

I definitly believe in autonamy as well. But I believe life is not about having a freefall toward nothing, shedding as many ties as possible. I believe, life is about thinking ideas and purposes that you choose to commit yourself fully, to pledge to, to live for.

Understanding through Autonomy.

Not the opposite.

To clarify I don't have a problem when people intefere in the World in general, I have a problem with atheists intefering.

For example, if the World was completely atheist, and I didn't like how it was being run, I wouldn't call myself

"aatheist"

thats not a typo the double a is intentional. I would say

"I don't like your World. I'm gonna burn it up and build my own one."


If that's what people think of this World, they should be honest. I dunno if at's at the point of burning up, but I definitly do not really like the World as it is today.


This is off topic again anyway, I apologise.

VEGANGELICA

I'm glad we both agree that someone could observe a religious faith and also be a Unitarian Universalist. I feel it is helpful to see where we have common ground in our thinking...before we figure out where our thoughts differ.

I feel your disbelief that someone could truthfully be "atheist" and "Unitarian Universalist" reflects your opinion about what these terms mean but doesn't accurately reflect reality, Crukster.

I know that some Unitarian Universalists believe in god(s) (I'd call these people "theists"), and some lack a belief in any gods or do not believe in any gods (I'd call these people "atheists," and many Unitarian Universalists self-identify as atheists), and some Unitarian Universalists believe it is unknowable whether or not gods exist (I'd call these people "agnostics"). Unitarian Universalists also include many other people, too, who hold a wide variety of other beliefs.

I do agree with you, though, that within people within a Unitarian Universalist Fellowship would probably refer to an atheist member as a "Unitarian Universalist" and wouldn't split UU people into subclasses, but this doesn't mean that a UU person can't also self-identify as an atheist.

You say you think many atheists feel the term "atheist" is applied to them by outsiders. While some atheists may not identify themselves as "atheists" and are indeed labeled as you suggest, some atheists *do* identify their beliefs as atheistic because that is the simplest statement of their viewpoint: they lack a belief in gods or do not believe in gods. This says nothing about how they *feel* about religions, which brings me to your next statement:

I think again that you may be assuming atheism has a deeper emotional meaning than it does in reality.

It sounds to me as if you think "atheism" equals "anti-theism," and while some atheists may also be anti-theists, this is not always the case.

For example, some atheists may be anti-theism occasionally, while other atheists may have a variety of feelings about religions, including longing.

You could even have an atheist who sometimes is anti-theism, and yet sometimes feels longing for certain theist beliefs to be true. (That would best describe *my* feelings as an atheist. As for my beliefs, I believe no gods exist, but I feel the possibility that gods exist can't be disproven using the scientific method.)

In other words, more options exist besides the "either you're for theism or against" dichotomy that you have set up, just as there are all sorts of shades of gray and colors in addition to black and white.

I feel "atheism," "non-theist," and "agnosticism" are defined well, which to me means accurately, in the following quote from an essay, "If there is a God," written by a Unitarian Universalist (who identifies herself as an agnostic):

What I hope you'll see from these definitions is that the defintion of "atheist" does not include any requirement that a "member of atheism" either wants to support or wants to dismantle religion.

I understand and agree with what you are saying about a universal commonality to all existence: you are not just a solitary thinking and feeling being alone in the universe. I *do* perceive and understand you because I have a feeling of existing that I assume is similar to yours.

I also perceive we are surrounded by trillions of beings who see and perceive and understand each other to various degrees (I am including humanity and other living beings). I feel it is amazing (but not a miracle) that we are part of the life with which our planet is teeming.

From reading the above, Crukster, I'm thinking that what really bugs you about the term "atheist" is that you feel it is not a positive statement of what an atheist *does* believe.

I think a majority of atheists would want to protect the current world and save what they like about it (rather than "burn" it), just like I think the majority of religious people wouldn't want to be "a-atheists" who hope to burn a hypothetical predominantly atheist world.

I agree with you that there is much not to like about the world as it is today. In many ways life certainly doesn't fit *my* ideal of what existence would be like. In other ways, the world is much more wonderful than anything I think I could have imagined on my own.

My main complaints about existence: I don't like all the suffering in the world and I don't like mortality.

I can't stop mortality from happening, but I can try to prevent or reduce suffering and and I can try not to contribute to suffering.

That's how my 'faith' as a strong atheist manifests itself: if there is no heaven, no god, no life after death, then I want to try to make this life that we *know* exists a little more "heaven-like." So then instead of discussing what heaven after death might be like, I can discuss and debate with people about what we feel heaven on earth *before* death would be like and how we can work together to help more beings experience "heaven on earth" in the here and now.

__________________

Howard the Duck

aiyoh! what has any of this go to do with levels of observance of rituals?

mods, can we move the atheism debates into an "Atheism" thread?

crukster

In general I agree with what you're saying tbh, I read your whole post but I'm gonna quote this bit cos I like in particular what you said, that's very admirable, I can understand and respect that. That's what I try to do, or hope to try to do in Life as well, even though I believe in Heaven, (or the "Afterlife" anyway at least.)

I believe but I don't know, I haven't died and seen it, yet. So the best bet is to make this Life as good and full as possible, I understand people have different ways of going about that. Personally it's about finding the fullest things, the most fulfilling. I assume other people do too and so it bugs me when I see people doing things which are a bit weak or lame, and it bugs me even more when they can't even back it up but don't wanna hear me out. Maybe that's fascist I dunno, hardline, I want everyone to be like me. But I believe what I know is Right, even if I am flawed in my application the methodology is right. And I think for a lot of people if they heard out the methodology, it would work for them, and hell, they'd probably have a lessed flawed application because it's a direct explanation and understanding, it comes without the sht

This is a bit of a ramble again, but basically, yeah I feel the term atheists, well firstly

1. I do believe in something so as a Man I disagree with the foundation of atheism

2. But speaking from a larger viewpoint, they're not making the most of their ideas, they're not fulfilling themselves as "atheists" and what it is they're saying by calling themselves atheists. even non-theist doesnt bother me as much. Even if it did break down into tooth and claw actual war, well what sort of an enemy are you fighting where they dont care if they win? I at least want my enemies to be a challenge.

But A-theist...its a total disregard for theism. I dont believe space crocodiles exist, btu I dont totally disregard it, cos it wont matter when its standing in front of me, all that'll matter is getting out of its jaws.

If it's a total disregard you have to stand by that.

Maybe you're right and it means more to me than the atheists. But what would that tell you?

Why declare an outright splitting of the cosmos and then act like theres no meaning to it?

Burning Down

I consider myself an atheist Jew. There's a whole history and culture that goes along with being Jewish and religion is only a part of that. I don't reject religion at all, but I personally don't believe in a deity so why get involved in religious matters? I haven't really been involved in religion since my Bat Mitzvah when I was 12, but that doesn't mean that I've completely rejected religion as a whole. I respect people who have faith in God, or who go to church every week, etc., just like I respect others who don't.

VEGANGELICA

As an atheist and Unitarian Universalist supporter, I 'observe' my beliefs and feelings about secular principles of Unitarian Universalism by trying to help create a "heaven on earth." Therefore I feel Crukster's and my discussion about what atheism means and how it influences people's behavior in the world falls under the general description made by the Original Poster:

__________________

crukster

Of course you've probably got your own idea of identity and I'm not begrudging anyone that but going off what you said, imo, you're a Jew who has a dispute over certain aspects of Judaism, then. I think the atheism part is unneccessary.

God is a lot than just Heavenly Father, in my belief, that's all I'm saying.

Moot point anyway I suppose. I'm shouting to myself. In the end, it is how it is, we'll all see that one day *shrug* Maybe there's diddly squat at the end, maybe we all siphon off down the drain and its done. Or maybe we move on somewhere to some other state I dunno.

But what is not moot and what is relevant is us, now, thinking, doing. I do more thinking than doing, but eh what I mean is reality. Thus, Religion is always valid so long as any particular Religion teaches a way of maintaining and making the best of your Existence. Maybe that's all God is in the end - a burning fireball that we're sitting in the middle of. How long we keep throwing fuel on the fire is how long we keep burning, and burning is all we've got. Maybe. Or maybe we gotta...light some rockets...

I need to smoke on this hmmm.


On topic, seeing as I've managed to write a lot without writing anything to the original post - I would call myself very religiously and spiritually observant, but I take everything with a grain of salt. What makes sense makes sense, what works works, what doesn't doesn't. I am Muslim, but I am also laid back. I haven't been to a Mosque in years. I consider it a big part of what shaped me as a person though, and I consider it my base, my grounds.

Base must be proven to be solid ground. Solid ground must be built on. Continual progression from an understanding of Nothing. Like dropping a seed in a barren land and watching a garden grow. Inter-function. System, order. Harmony. Cause and effect. Creation, heartbeats boom BOOM boom BOOM living things, LIFE, existence existing, Almighty Creation staring at where the void would be without it.

**** like this I dunno I should write it all down more clearly these are cliffnotes

Howard the Duck

i believe God is a kind of gravititional anchor in the centre of the Universe (or even a Multiverse) or even something bigger than the Universe whose fringes we can't perceive, sort of an amorphous mass of matter/energy/particles, but my Gnostic views doesn't portray him as having any human characteristics - It's just something that's holding the fabric of reality together, and remains chaotic, neutral, non-judgmental, cos we can't even begin to comprehend Its mind and if It's intentions were benign, there wouldn't have been Laws of Entropy (everything decays) or The Evil That Men Do or Chaos Theory (more chaos than order in the Universe)

perhaps that's UU in some ways

crukster

That's solid man that's something like what I believe as well.

I don't think of God as a personified man in the sky. That's egotism of the Race, surely. As if we'rre the epitome of all intelligence and creation, as if we have no more room to grow or anything. Those things are definitly not true imo. The idea of God as a man/woman/mortal limits the understanding of the bigger picture.

GeddyBass2112

Not trying to be a jackass but I don't want to have to read pages and pages of arguments when it's not really what the thread is for.


Unfortunately the fluid nature of many religious texts (including my own!) allow people to claim that whatever violence you care to name, from suicide bombings to wars and murders, are license to kill, injure and destroy 'in the name of God'. You've also got the major issue that different denominations and different groups accept some texts to be more important to others, or reject completely some books/chapters/readings, such as Christian denominations and the debate about the Apocrypha, or the Muslim groups who reject the Hadith (there are a growing number of groups who do this).

The grand majority of attempts to ban religions and ideologies is largely doomed to fail. It didn't work in ancient Rome with the Christians, it didn't work in Stalin's Russia and it isn't working in China either. You can knock down a building (such as a church) but you can't police what is in people's heads.


Again, the fluid nature of many religious systems means that whilst some periods in history and some cultural groups see people of different religions live happily together whilst others do not. The Roman empire is a prime example: there were some 5000 different recognized religions, belief systems and cults, both from within the Roman empire and outside it. You could pretty much believe in any gods you so chose, one or many, Roman and foreign, local, national or from the pantheon, and there was so sense of conflict in doing so.

It wasn't just the evolution thing which struck me but the constant keeping happy of this group by our ministers and lay preachers. They constantly wanted the worship band to stick to 'traditional' songs rather than what they termed 'throw-away' modern songs (I was in the worship band so this annoyed me because no-one else had an issue with the songs we did), they didn't like things like the youth groups' annual service (where all the children of the church did the entire service), complaining that it was 'out of character for the church' (it consisted of things like song/dance acts, plays, shorter sermons than the normal service and only a small worship music section). I personally thought it good to encourage the kids to do it.