--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mainstream, maybe I am doing injustice to Curtis, I am > certainly not doubting his creative process. Its simply my > understanding of atheism as a philosophy of life. Religion, > any religion certainly questions the independence of our > mind /ego (while I am aware that Christianity makes it a > special point that God gave man freedom of decision - not > my belief) and makes it dependent on another entity, atheism > asserts us that we alone are in control of our lives. At > least thats what I have understood it to mean until now.
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? 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. At the same time, would you say that Buddhists feel separate from the world, or "independent" from it? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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." 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. > 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, that is GOD doing all that. Curtis doesn't have a CHOICE, 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. 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 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. My advice to you, given your belief system, is to lighten up, dude...or He might decide to smite you. My advice to Curtis is to keep thinking for himself, because he obviously still can. [ 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." ]
