Removing the Toxicities of Both Theism and Atheism

The subject of this sub-forum was "how to get the best of both theistic and atheistic world-views, while avoiding the pitfalls of both."

It's a huge topic, and I seem to be alone in it now, but I will continue.

What follows is nothing more than my opening salvo. It is my own opinion, and nothing more.

Millennia of effort by the greatest theological and philosophical minds seem to have demonstrated, finally, that the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved. In fact, seemingly compelling evidence has been produced on both sides of the question.

Human genetic and cultural evolution points inexorably to the facts that:
Even atheists have genetically programmed "religious" impulses, and
Even theists have rational (if not always scientific) impulses.

Therefore:
Because the existence of God (or gods) cannot be proved or disproved, it should be clear that the nature of God (or gods) must consequently remain irresolvable. To know something definitive about the nature of anything presupposes that one has evidence, and such evidence would provide adequate proof of the existence of the thing itself. Thus:
No human can know for certain the will of God or gods. To make a claim of certain knowledge of the will of God would necessarily be proof of the existence of God, which cannot be proven. Therefore:
It must be assumed that God or gods, assuming their existence, can communicate (in some undefined manner) either with no humans, or with all humans equally. It is absurd to suppose that God or gods can communicate only with certain selected prophets, for the purpose of disseminating important information to all mankind. Therefore:
Depending upon intellectual flexibility, both atheists and theists can share key ethical values. Also, we must again refer to Article Three, and realize that certain knowledge of ethical rules by a deity are non knowable.
There will be more as I get time...

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

EH, so far I can agree with this. You have stated what I have believed for a while now: religion is a personal choice. I think you are doing a wonderful job in stating that in a rational, unemotional way, that is not offensive, or at least I don't think it is offensive. Kudos to you, sir, for all your work.

Sounds good to me, too. The only "exception" I would take to the statements you made is Article 3:

Why limit what people can say/not say about God, just because it doesn't meet someone else's standard of "proof" or logic? If definitive statements about what God wants shouldn't be made, why should we allow any statements about God, either for or against?

And how can one impose their beliefs upon others? I can see where people should not be allowed to make law based purely on belief, but I don't see how one can actually impose on the mind of someone else.....

Thank you, agneleyes, I think you have that one correctly. Let's amend article 3.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Theists and atheists alike have shown throughout history an equal capacity for awe, or for the banal, for wonder or for blind acceptance of dogma, for ethical and unethical behaviour, and for humanitarian actions and great evil. Neither has a monopoly on any of these things, so that we might assume that they are unlikely to be associated with either theism or atheism, but with our basic and essential humanity. Therefore:
It is very clear that there is much, much more to human consciousness than almost anyone can guess at. This has been demonstrated in myriad ways, and as science explores more and more of the human mind, it appears that there are capacities of which the vast majority of humans remain completely unaware.

We can make any assumptions that we choose about the source of deeper (or more transcendant) levels of consciousness -- from God or the self, from the universe or the structure of the brain. These are interesting questions, but don't alter the basic assumption.

It should also be clear that acquiring access to deeper or more transcendant levels of consciousness has potential benefits for the individual, including such mundane techniques as "visualizing" to achieve sports excellence, meditation to acquire new levels of self-understanding, peaceful harmony, things and events "seen but unnoticed," etc. Therefore:

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

I agree on article 1, but article 2 is bias and contradicts article one.

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

Could you please provide more to clarify your thinking?

Article 1 suggests that the existence of God is not provable, and you agreed with that.

Article 2 suggests that there is nothing that can definitively be known about the nature of God. In fact, I think that if there is something that can be shown to be definitively part of the nature of God, then we would have -- by definition -- proof of the existence of God.

Now, if you have something that you think can be said definitively about the nature of God (and by definitively I mean that you can, in effect, justify the position), I think we should hear it, so that we can consider.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Article 1 suggests it is a personal choice, not that God can not be proven or experienced.

At least that is how I understood it.

For example: I believe that God is spirit and spirit is perfect. If one would identify itself with being spirit intead of being human, one would experience what I experience (my belief in God). My proof is in your experience.

You might tell me a knife cuts, yet how would you prove that to me other then using it, trying it, demonstrating it?

Just because it is a personal choice not to believe in certain things does not mean that the belief in it can not be demonstrated or proven.

Article two suggest that "Definitive statements about the nature or speciation of God should not be made". That contradicts the first article as to being a personal chioce. Also if that were to be applied, what reason would we have to communicate at all? What would we talk about? Is not everything that comes from our mouth based on our beliefs?

With other words, we can't talk about our beliefs in God (being unconditional love), but it's o.k. to talk about disease? Illness? death? Coincedences? Vitamins? Suffering? Don't you see that being bias?

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

I would approach the articles differently. I would look for what all have in common as the main focus and then find a way to preserve instead of inforce. Article 1 is good. If ALL can agree on article 1, let's work together on how article 1 can be preserved.

__________________
May your awareness be perfection

Several things with that, though. First, what do you mean by "spirit?" Introducing a term which means something to you, but might not be shared by everyone, doesn't help to define God any better than simply calling Him "God" does. After all, everybody has an idea of what they mean by "God," and everybody has an idea of what is meant by "spirit," although some (for example me) would argue that spirit is an ill-defined term that doesn't seem to define what the majority of theists believe it defines.

You see? You have introduced a "definition" of God that has already begun an argument.

Second, you are suggesting that your way is the right way. "If one would identify itself with being spirit instead of being human..." Not everybody can or wants to do that, yet you then go on to say that they could then "experience what I experience (my belief in God). My proof is in your experience."

That is precisely the point that I'm trying to avoid with my Articles. I can't be you. You can't be me. (If you could, you would understand instantly why there is no God. If I could be the Pope, I've no doubt I'd understand instantly why there must be one.) We must each deal with such information and feelings as we have, since no one of us can live the life of another.
If you wish, you may try to demonstrate to me ho