Amos

The concept God exist for believers only but that which we call God exists in 'everybodies head' because we all have the potential to become God, or at least become the equivalent of what religion calls God. The problem is that this 'realization,' or what religion calls 'salvation,' cannot come on its own and that is the purpose of religion.

The advantage for non-believers is that they cannot end up in hell. The disadvantage is that they cannot end up in heaven but since protestants can't get to heaven anyway, it is much better to be a non-believer than it is to be a protestant.

Such is my refined "razor argument."

Amos

Of course I wish to communicate but I am not interested in converting anyone, and if anything, I admire atheist for taking a stand against religion. On the other hand do I hold that heaven is for Catholics only and just being a Catholic because we were born into the faith is best reason for being a Catholic. That is, I like the tradition of mystery religions.

Starboy

Then I apologize for insinuating that your intent is not to communicate. I suppose that in those moments where your comments appear as clear as mud, you are appealing to a tradition of communication that is unknown to me. It would help me and I suspect others to understand your points if you could state them in a fashion that is common to our times. This is just a request, but perhaps it is not possible. I suspect that to completely understand the spiritual you must approach it from the mystical. This method of understanding is not if this time. We have been for several hundred years in the age of reason.

Starboy

Jobar

As I stated earlier in the thread, this is not the first time the topic has come up. The best and most understandable explanation of the difference between weak and strong atheism that I have seen was in a post by one of our regulars- Goliath, maybe? I could look it up, but I'm not going to.

It hinged on a breakdown of the elements of the word 'atheism'. 'A' = no; 'the' from 'theos' = god; 'ism' = knowledge. So, 'no god knowledge'. These three words can be grouped in two ways- (no god) knowledge and no (god knowledge). The first is strong atheism- it means knowledge that no god exists. The second is weak atheism- it implies there is no knowledge of god.

I find differentiating between weak atheists and agnostics more problematical than the strong/weak distinction.

Amos

No apology needed Starboy. Not at all.

Maybe it is more true that I have my own opinion and do not appeal to anybody but at best lean on others to reinforce my position.

The mystical is maybe "not of this time" but we are only into the "age of reason" because we lost the mystical. I don't think we rejected it as much as that we lost it and since we have lost it we have no choice but do the best we can with what we have left.

Amos

The interpretaton of God is important because if, in the end, we can become God or become that which is meant by the word God, it is impossible not to believe in God because to believe in God is now equal to believing in yourself ("to get to know the lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind" equals to get to know your own self).

The only reason we believe in our self is because we have faith in our self and we have faith in our self to the same extent as we know our self. If then, in the end, we come to know who we really are and have the mind of God there is no God left or we could not be God.