Atheist Jedi

Khaos wrote: Communication is important.

Connection is essential to communication.

A smile on a person usually, if not always( as I have dealt with the mentally ill where this isnt the case, but they communicate poorly) that the person is conveying happiness.

Its less a matter of attributing meaning to something here, then going off previous evidence of having it conveyed to you.

It was the logical answer, it was simply a trick question.

It was.

I am an Atheist Jedi (or an Agnostic Jedi, but really somewhere in-between...so we'll go with Atheist for the purposes of this discussion).

I am an Atheist because I don't believe in a personal deity (a God), and my understanding of the term 'Atheist' means just that.

However, there might be someone out there with exactly the same Jedi beliefs as me who would not believe themselves to be an Atheist Jedi, and that is fine with me. It all depends on how you define the word, and also the terminology that you attach to your personal understanding of the Force (i.e. 'personal' - when this word means two different things to two different people they can experience the Force in the same way whilst one finds it to be personal and the other doesn't).

So yes, Atheist Jedi exist - the proof being in that I am one. And yes, for others, it is not possible for them to be an Atheist Jedi because in their understanding there is no such thing - and I and they are both right. Confusing...

On the matter of 'worship' - I don't believe that I worship the Force. I noted the example of those who 'worship' money - personally, I don't perceive people as worshipping money. At least not in a religious sense. 'Worship'. in the context of worshipping money, is a word that we have adapted to mean something different (i.e. enjoy/love/obsess over/crave etc). Again, it's all in one's understanding and application of the terminology.

A tricky thing, is language... :dry:

Khaos wrote: I am of the mind that religion itself was a way to communicate that which we could and couldnt understand at a given point in time in history.

Outdated software that was never updated.

I agree, but at the same time, there are things that Religion did for society that should not be lost. Yes, the divine worship thing is kind of medieval... but, the act of feasting around a table, meeting strangers, singing together, reading and analyzing texts, listening to orators, those kinds of rituals that were done as a community... I would love to still have those as a part of a secular society.

I'm curious.

Let's say "Pureland Jedi" and "Atheist Jedi" are both agreeably legitimate separate stances.

What would the difference between them be, if there is one?

I believe in the fabric concept also (since it sort of sits into contemplating about gravity), and view concepts like God as generated by the individuals mind to explain high order experiences (of the Force, which is everything anyway).

Does the God I might see in a vision exist, at that time yes, but only as my interpretation of something happening. I dont draw out all details of the experience as some truth - I instead see it as my mind trying to understand something more powerful then me.

So while I don't believe a God is sitting on a throne somewhere, I would say the Force (a greater experience) perhaps can be experienced in such a way that the mind contextualizes something foreign yet personal into a hybridized result, and elaborates upon that result as part of the process of trying to understand and experience it in human terms of reference.

If I view that as the process of experiencing a God or other high order experience, then I don't claim to be able to understand the nature of the source to its full extent - as a result of the apparent inability of the mind to communicate something greater then myself. I'll just assume its beyond my capacity as evidenced by the mind trying its best to understand it with the tools available to me.

So I don't think atheist is particularly useful because I find it more useful to associate a potential for deeper meaning into these experiences. To say there is 'no God' would be a belief in something I cannot know, effectively a delusion!? So I instead say I cannot know, but perhaps I might try to know, and the fruit of that effort is as close as I'll probably get... so God then might best be considered in terms of a personified personal relationship with the Force.

For me it helps with working on dreams or hallucinations to be able to associate experience into some dynamic of causality, otherwise I have no frame of reference to work with.... so I use the concept of the Force (or perhaps just the subconscious mind) trying to blast too much information, or not enough information, into my conscious mind.

So then I've said I believe the Force has a capacity to elucidate a presence, but because the Force is (imo) a different state of consciousness (if you willl) it's appearance to the human mind is temporary... and therefore not of a white bearded, olive skinned old man sitting on a cloud throne judging sinners and saints. I don't though think the Force is temporary, instead its greater potentials are beyond physical manifestation for the most part, and that its physical manifestations available to us are limited by the other aspects of whatever universal dance is really going on around us.

On the side note of time, I view the capacity of the future to exist in the Force as having only a short range, more of a causality map rippling forward only so far, being defeated by the increasing variables as some sort of function between ones will, the impact of actions and number of participants with influence, sort of thing.

This turned out longer then I expected!!

Proteus wrote: I'm curious.

Let's say "Pureland Jedi" and "Atheist Jedi" are both agreeably legitimate separate stances.

What would the difference between them be, if there is one?

Sorry, what does "Pureland" refer to?
I would assume it has something to do with a God or Gods since the other is atheist, but I have never heard the term.

Renny wrote:

Proteus wrote: I'm curious.

Let's say "Pureland Jedi" and "Atheist Jedi" are both agreeably legitimate separate stances.

What would the difference between them be, if there is one?

Sorry, what does "Pureland" refer to?
I would assume it has something to do with a God or Gods since the other is atheist, but I have never heard the term.

"Pureland" (as far as I've heard) is the term for "just Jedi", with no accessory beliefs (like Christianity, paganism, etc) tied to it. The only belief is in that of the Force and nothing more. It used to be considered a rite within Jediism, at least here, before rites became special interest groups.

Proteus wrote: I'm curious.

Let's say "Pureland Jedi" and "Atheist Jedi" are both agreeably legitimate separate stances.

What would the difference between them be, if there is one?

Could be nothing... Which is how I see it...

Could be enough that a "self described" Atheist/PureLand denies being a part of the other...

And needs a dividing line...

Jestor wrote:

Proteus wrote: I'm curious.

Let's say "Pureland Jedi" and "Atheist Jedi" are both agreeably legitimate separate stances.

What would the difference between them be, if there is one?

Could be nothing... Which is how I see it...

Could be enough that a "self described" Atheist/PureLand denies being a part of the other...

And needs a dividing line...

Jestor wrote:

Proteus wrote: I'm curious.

Let's say "Pureland Jedi" and "Atheist Jedi" are both agreeably legitimate separate stances.

What would the difference between them be, if there is one?

Could be nothing... Which is how I see it...

Could be enough that a "self described" Atheist/PureLand denies being a part of the other...

And needs a dividing line...

To clarify...

In the last two.lines, I meant:

The difference could be enough that the person on question felt the need to differentiate between the two....

Lol, am I clear? I don't feel like it, :lol:...

Well, a Pureland Jedi could believe the Force is a deity. Therefore, understand it as a higher power.

However, can we have a discussion about what "Higher" power means? What is higher? Do they mean in the sky? Above the sky? Do they know we don't live in a 2-dimensional plane? What's the y-intercept of God?

Higher on a metaphysical level? As in... the Oversoul described in Transcendentalism? Or maybe the three-tiered existence of Platonis's neo-Platonist idea that there is a Oneness above all other onenesses?

That our physical existence is an illusion? That we should turn away from that plane and look toward the true existence (Re: "Everything is mind")?

There's a lot of terminology that gets confused here. I think the bottom line is this: Atheists do not consider reality in a way beyond the physical plane. Now, Atheism is a blanket term just as Theism contains both Christianity and Theravada Buddhism. So, to try and say that all Atheists have some considerations means that I have to leave out some of them.

Jedi is also a blanket term. It has divisions within divisions. Every single adherent has a viewpoint that is independent to everybody else's. It's perspective. It's an interesting point of view.

In this mind, equating Pureland and Atheism is not right. Just like trying to equate one Atheist to another Atheist is problematic.

But, let's consider something else. What does it mean to be a Pureland Jedi? As above, the Force could be seen as a higher-than-physical plane. So, it's possible that Jedi have a "belief" or "faith" in this Force. Not all Jedi see it that way. I certainly don't. I do not need to believe in the Force for it to exist. I see its evidence everyday by the fact that I can move through this physical plane. I process that plane in my mind. And, I know that all minds are connected through the shared energies of the universe (Big Bang, and such). So... I don't need to believe in the Force to engender its being.

*shrugs* It's not something that could probably be answered unless looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Connor L. wrote:

Khaos wrote: I am of the mind that religion itself was a way to communicate that which we could and couldnt understand at a given point in time in history.

Outdated software that was never updated.

I agree, but at the same time, there are things that Religion did for society that should not be lost. Yes, the divine worship thing is kind of medieval... but, the act of feasting around a table, meeting strangers, singing together, reading and analyzing texts, listening to orators, those kinds of rituals that were done as a community... I would love to still have those as a part of a secular society.

I dont think Religion did this for society... Nor have I ever needed Religion to take part in these things.

As for the analyzing text and listening to Orators, I suppose I would need some clarification on that

Maybe they didn't do them for society initially, but they certainly became the standard during.

And, have fallen out of practice since.

It's not that you could "take part" in these things by choice.. but rather they were acts that were part of the culture. It's not part of our culture anymore in Secular Urban America.

The movements that DO do this are the Humanist and Unitarian Universalist movements.

And, what I mean by analyzing text is Bible Study, and listening to Orators is sitting in a room listening to a sermon by a preacher.

But, the book doesn't have to be the Bible, and the sermon doesn't have to be about God.

We certainly have them as a part of society, but not in the same way that religion engrained them in the very ritual of being a human. "Go to church on Sunday. Go to bible camp in the summer. Go to worship on Wednesday night. Sing with the Choir. Go to the big thanksgiving dinner. Go work at the homeless shelter."

These things were just a part of religious society. And, secular society has rejected these rituals along with the rituals of worshiping a God. I just don't want it ALL to go away and devolve into a world where community is replaced by Google.

Connor L. wrote: However, can we have a discussion about what "Higher" power means? What is higher? Do they mean in the sky? Above the sky? Do they know we don't live in a 2-dimensional plane? What's the y-intercept of God?

I used the term higher as higher order experience, in effect more information being received then can be understood. I think the brain transforms information into the shape our perception is tuned/trained in, so if it don't fit, it twists it and tries to make something creative to achieve accuracy - resulting in changed perception (success!) or confusion (failure?). In that regard higher could mean more complex or larger, or faster - a light path, where things default to 'white noise' - assuming the input is in excess of capability, otherwise whimsy comes into play as "true noise" and training should be able to resolve that down to concepts of emptiness, with 'dark' as a baseline of no data. Then slower or lower complexity (below contextualization by the mind) is a lower order experience. It's not a qualitative approach but a quantitative approach simply because I'm not in a position to verify any aspect of it's quality, so lower and higher 'orders' are relative terms to my normal state of perception.

So for me an Atheist Jedi has no interest in a relationship to the Force as a character, basically because I'd assume they associate that level of commune to be to actual physical incarnations only (for whatever reason, perhaps a safer path or to better focus on aspects of self). The closest I get to Pureland is some of the Buddhist view on the concept, and as such I'd consider a Pureland Jedi as someone who is energetically recreating all perception into discrete psychological phenomena and using it to perceive some actualization of the Force itself!!!
:S

Adder wrote:

Connor L. wrote: However, can we have a discussion about what "Higher" power means? What is higher? Do they mean in the sky? Above the sky? Do they know we don't live in a 2-dimensional plane? What's the y-intercept of God?

I used the term higher as higher order experience, in effect more information being received then can be understood. I think the brain transforms information into the shape our perception is tuned/trained in, so if it don't fit, it twists it and tries to make something creative to achieve accuracy - resulting in changed perception (success!) or confusion (failure?). In that regard higher could mean more complex or larger, or faster - a light path, where things default to 'white noise' - assuming the input is in excess of capability, otherwise whimsy comes into play as "true noise" and training should be able to resolve that down to concepts of emptiness, with 'dark' as a baseline of no data. Then slower or lower complexity (below contextualization by the mind) is a lower order experience. It's not a qualitative approach but a quantitative approach simply because I'm not in a position to verify any aspect of it's quality, so lower and higher 'orders' are relative terms to my normal state of perception.

My wife works for a large company...

Lets use that as an analogy...

In most cases, the current level has little idea what the level above them is doing, lol..

So, I think, when most people use "higher power", the use it in a similar manner...

It equates to the "unknown forces that run this place"

Just my musings....

So for me an Atheist Jedi has no interest in a relationship to the Force as a character, basically because I'd assume they associate that level of commune to be to actual physical incarnations only (for whatever reason, perhaps a safer path or to better focus on aspects of self). The closest I get to Pureland is some of the Buddhist view on the concept, and as such I'd consider a Pureland Jedi as someone who is energetically recreating all perception into discrete psychological phenomena and using it to perceive some actualization of the Force itself!!!
:S

Uh, the parts I could follow?

Yep, I'd buy that...

For me, personally, I wouldn't apply that to all Atheist Jedi...

And, lol, let me remind folks, again, I do not call myself this...

I only said I would probably be seen as one...

I am a Jedi, I believe in the Force...

Interesting discussion which I'm very late to. But from near the OP...

Wescli Wardest wrote: We have a saying in the Army… there are no Atheist in fox holes. When I was a private I was tickled by this. I thought that was just something a bunch of religious fanatics said to feel better about their convictions. That is until the arrogance and inexperience of my youth was cleansed away by reality. I have seen people that would argue with Jesus himself that there was no such thing as god began begging to someone to get them out of the situation they were in.

When the crap hits the fan, I have never seen an Atheist in a fox hole.

Humans definitely seem psychologically predisposed to believe in some higher entity, perhaps because we begin as small individuals with large all-knowing, all-powerful entities towering above us (our parents). We are in a very real sense created by (usually) benevolent beings far greater than ourselves.

This structure is even reinforced in the military - I'm not suggesting your commanding officer is like your mom, but there often is some higher authority who can "get you out" of that situation, namely the person who can send in reinforcements, an airstrike or whatever, however unrealistic that is in a given situation (I doubt there's much place for realism in a foxhole when the crap hits the fan, either!).

So specifically in a crap-fanned foxhole, there's a lot pushing you towards begging "something" for help.

But I don't think the fact our brains are wired to beg "someone, anyone" to come to our aid proves anything other than our psychology however... I'm not saying that was your suggestion Wes, but it seems to be the suggestion of the saying. Even if every human believed in an objective God, that wouldn't be enough to make one exist in anything other than a conceptual sense... meaning it still wouldn't reach down a hand and pluck you out of the damn foxhole :laugh:

In fact, if you're someone who believes in an objective God... didn't that objective God not only put you into the foxhole, but turn on the fan and take the crap? I guess you could argue that those who beg for God's help are the ones who aren't expressing faith in His will... :huh:

@ tzb…

I think what a lot of people miss in the idea for help is not that and invisible hand is going to part the clouds, come down through a rain of bullets and pluck someone out of a bad situation. That, to me, is just silly; and a reductio ad absurdum!

I believe it goes back to an earlier understanding of Hell before it was bastardised by the church. All things exist in the presence of god. Whether one understands god to be an omnipotent being, a deity or an energy field; god exists in all things. You, me, the trees, the water, the rock, the air, your enemy, your loved ones… it is a part of everything and we are a part of god. Marvel is how we are granted this understanding whether we choose to accept it or not. To be in hell is to be outside the presence of that thing. To lose our connection with it.

I think when people are faced with horrible situations, when fear grips the very fibers of their bodies and they feel utterly alone, over whelmed and helpless… when they ask for help they are asking (even if on an unconscious level) to return to the comfort of a better place and time. To be eased in a moment of distress. Not for an unseen force to deliver them, physically, from the hell they face but to make them feel delivered and loved.

I have always, even as a child felt a far stronger connection to Gaia than the Christian idea of god. And Gaia is represented as Mother Nature or the Earth. I don’t know how many of you are familiar with the destructive and almost vengeful nature she appears to display from time to time but I would surely never ask her to save me from a situation. But then again, my understanding of “god” has probably always been different than most and it is not a humanized entity that I try to form some personal relationship with either.

tzb wrote: In fact, if you're someone who believes in an objective God... didn't that objective God not only put you into the foxhole, but turn on the fan and take the crap? I guess you could argue that those who beg for God's help are the ones who aren't expressing faith in His will... :huh:

Made me remember this....

Wescli wrote: To be in hell is to be outside the presence of that thing. To lose our connection with it.

To deny change?

Otherwise, how could one ever be "outside"?

Jestor wrote:

Wescli wrote: To be in hell is to be outside the presence of that thing. To lose our connection with it.

To deny change?

Otherwise, how could one ever be "outside"?

I do not understand the question?!?!?

Wescli Wardest wrote:

Jestor wrote:

Wescli wrote: To be in hell is to be outside the presence of that thing. To lose our connection with it.

To deny change?

Otherwise, how could one ever be "outside"?

I do not understand the question?!?!?

You said:

believe it goes back to an earlier understanding of Hell before it was bastardised by the church. All things exist in the presence of god. Whether one understands god to be an omnipotent being, a deity or an energy field; god exists in all things. You, me, the trees, the water, the rock, the air, your enemy, your loved ones… it is a part of everything and we are a part of god. Marvel is how we are granted this understanding whether we choose to accept it or not. To be in hell is to be outside the presence of that thing. To lose our connection with it.

As we are a part of it, we cannot rally lose our connection, physically...

Only mentally....

And "Would that be to resist change?"

Refusal to accept the "What is"...

Which is usually different from the "what was (known, or thought to be)...