Atheist Jedi

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Outdated software that was never updated.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)...

People want to live forever.

At least there consciousness.

Many use the "Energy cannot be detroyed, only change form" approach.

Energy and consciousness, sentience, are not the same thing.

However many, if not all religions play to the ego.

"You will live forever"

Be it heaven, a Force ghost, etc.

People have hard time , and build walls to protect themselves from the fact that they will one day cease to be as there current consciousness.

Nothing I have seen about death, and I have seen alot, gives validity to that thought process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUP9AOqoMFg

@ Jestor…

If I am understanding you correctly, yes. I feel that it is the “feeling” of reconnection being sought for comforts sake. Not that there is an actual disconnect on with a physical manifestation.

I don’t know though, it could be a spiritual disconnect as well? What I mean is not that our spirits disconnect from everything else, but because of a mental block our spirits become out of accord with. Or in a way, disconnected from. This is all speculation on my part!!! I have never felt as if I were not a part of the whole. My understanding of it and my place in it has changed over the years, but I have always been aware of it and that I am a part of it. So like O said, I am merely speculating what others may be facing. In an attempt to better understand it.

Khaos wrote: People want to live forever.

At least there consciousness.

Many use the "Energy cannot be detroyed, only change form" approach.

Energy and consciousness, sentience, are not the same thing.

However many, if not all religions play to the ego.

"You will live forever"

Be it heaven, a Force ghost, etc.

People have hard time , and build walls to protect themselves from the fact that they will one day cease to be as there current consciousness.

Nothing I have seen about death, and I have seen alot, gives validity to that thought process.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUP9AOqoMFg

He says "Ernest Becker says that the only solution is to come up with illusions."

No...

The only solution is "acceptance"...

Somebody might have already said this, so forgive me, I didn't feel like reading the whole thread.

I haven't considered myself a Jedi for a while, but I think I can at least give an informed view on this. I think all sides involved in this discussion need to remember that there is a difference between atheist and non-theist. Because Buddhism does not have a god, does that make Buddhists atheists (I'm not referring to atheists who accept Buddhist philosophy)?

The distinction is important to make. To me, true atheism equals total materialism. No spirits, nothing supernatural, no afterlife, nothing immaterial. To me, I've always thought that an atheist could not be a Jediist because Jediism is founded upon a belief in the Force, as a supernatural and immaterial entity, and because Jediism often styles itself as a religion, or at least religious in nature.

That's not to say that atheists couldn't live by Jediist philosopy, whatever the hell that involves, no differently than they could live by Buddhist or Christian philosophy.

Star Forge wrote: Somebody might have already said this, so forgive me, I didn't feel like reading the whole thread.

I haven't considered myself a Jedi for a while, but I think I can at least give an informed view on this. I think all sides involved in this discussion need to remember that there is a difference between atheist and non-theist. Because Buddhism does not have a god, does that make Buddhists atheists (I'm not referring to atheists who accept Buddhist philosophy)?

The distinction is important to make. To me, true atheism equals total materialism. No spirits, nothing supernatural, no afterlife, nothing immaterial. To me, I've always thought that an atheist could not be a Jediist because Jediism is founded upon a belief in the Force, as a supernatural and immaterial entity, and because Jediism often styles itself as a religion, or at least religious in nature.

That's not to say that atheists couldn't live by Jediist philosopy, whatever the hell that involves, no differently than they could live by Buddhist or Christian philosophy.

I could not find a definition that clearly supported your statement, but I do like the idea of it. So I continue looking and found this…

What is Non Theistic Religion
By Edward L. Ericson

The Humanist Way—An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion ©

Chapter One:

Since a nontheistic conception of religion is basic to Naturalistic Humanism, it may be helpful to be as specific as possible in our usage of that term. At the outset, it is essential to understand that “nontheistic” is not used as synonym or euphemism for “atheistic.” The atheist, like the theist, takes a definite position with respect to the doctrine that God exists. The atheist denies or disbelieves it. The theist affirms it. But while the individual member of the Ethical Humanist movement may be an atheist, agnostic, theist, deist, or believe whatever else the individual regards to be probable or true about the God question, the ethical philosophy takes no official position with respect to such belief.

As nontheistic religion is defined, the prefix “non” should be understood to mean simply that the theistic reference does not apply. Ours is a religion or belief of a totally different type in which the God question is not of primary concern. As we have emphasized before, Ethical Humanism’s starting point is ethics, not speculative theology.

Ethical Humanism is commitment to a way of life, to a creative relationship to others and thereby to ourselves, in which metaphysical and theological arguments are set aside. Whether or not God exists may be an interesting question. But the answer to that question–if answerable at all–should make no crucial difference in how we ought to live, how we ought to treat our fellow beings. My ethical obligations and potentialities–and yours–remain exactly the same, whether God exists or does not exist. Our shared task is to live decently, compassionately, and caringly in the world we inhabit.

Albert Einstein said it best on behalf of all Ethical Humanists when he commended the New York Society for Ethical Culture on the occasion of its seventy-fifth anniversary year. He noted that the idea of Ethical Culture embodied his personal conception of what is most valuable and enduring in religious idealism. Humanity requires such a belief to survive, Einstein argued. “Without ‘ethical culture’ there is no salvation for humanity,” the great physicist and Humanist observed.
That thought, we are convinced, is the greatest idea in the world.

Edward L. Ericson

The Humanist Way—An Introduction to Ethical Humanist Religion ©

http://ethicalsocietywestchester.org/philosophy-of-ethical-culture/what-is-non-theistic-religion/

To associate the non-theist with the belief in a “supernatural” and the immaterial without the attachment of the humanized personal relationship with a deity could be a very accurate description of certain ideas.

On a side note, that is also how I viewed Atheism before the conversation we’ve had in this thread. But now I wonder if some Atheist are really non-theist? Just thinking out loud.

Star Forge wrote: I think all sides involved in this discussion need to remember that there is a difference between atheist and non-theist. Because Buddhism does not have a god, does that make Buddhists atheists (I'm not referring to atheists who accept Buddhist philosophy)?

The distinction is important to make. To me, true atheism equals total materialism. No spirits, nothing supernatural, no afterlife, nothing immaterial. To me, I've always thought that an atheist could not be a Jediist because Jediism is founded upon a belief in the Force, as a supernatural and immaterial entity, and because Jediism often styles itself as a religion, or at least religious in nature.

That's not to say that atheists couldn't live by Jediist philosopy, whatever the hell that involves, no differently than they could live by Buddhist or Christian philosophy.

Per Google:

Google wrote: atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

You didn't define "non-theist", but the gGoogle definition would seem to fit as well....

And, as jedi beliefs vary, of course there can be Atheist Jedi....

Do yourself a favor, read the threaf, then comment...

I took time out of my busy life for you, perhaps if you read my comments, your opinion, like hat of Wescli's, would change...

Not agree with me, but at least understand where I'm coming from....

But, I guess I could just reiterate....

"I do not believe the Force is an entity"...

That help? :lol:...

(Nice to see you!)

I do not believe in a God, and am therefore an Atheist.

I believe in the Jedi teachings, and am therefore a Jedi.

I believe in the power and value of humanity, and am therefore a humanist.

I believe in the balance of the Dao and teachings of Lao Tzu, and am therefore a Taoist.

I believe in meditation and the teachings of Buddha, and am therefore a Buddhist.

Labels are merely that. Labels. Often times the underlying nature of the individual is not to conform to a particular label, and only that label; but rather to have forged their own identity.

Pureland was another name for "Jediism" at totjo. So all the classic Jediism stuff applies, and none of this includes deities. While it technically could, force=god has always been either with a pantheist definition (which is no god at all), or a christian Jedi thing, which doesn't fall into Jediism but Jedi Realism instead (and as such into totjo's former "abrahamic rite") Totjo has never been proper 100% Jediist, but more like Jedi realism (and jediism) as an organized religion. jediism isn't necessarily organized, and I've always preferred it disorganized with just core teachings.

note that "jedi realism" has nothing to do with realism.

Also Buddhists usually count as atheist, since atheist doesn't mean irreligious, however it should be noted that native "followers" will also likely be part of a local "folk" religion, which may involve local traditional beliefs in deities.
and atheism and non-theism mean exactly the same thing, however non-theism is more christian-friendly, it's the same story as "agnostic" really.