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Outdated software that was never updated.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)...