Atheist Jedi

Wescli Wardest wrote: @ Jestor...

Worship is an act of religious devotion usually directed towards a deity. It means to show honour or to honour. I think the reason perceives worship to be more then that is because of the Christians for Western society. In the Bible it says to worship with song and dance. So that is how many of the services have evolved.

So I do believe that we all, from the newest member to each Council member “worships” the Force.

That was just a thought (Atheist Polytheist) trying to reconcile different aspects I have seen over the last few years here.

I still don’t think I understand the idea of being an Atheist Jedi… and I’m not sure I agree with the idea either. Not saying its wrong! But from my understanding it still doesn’t jive.

Definitely worth spending more time trying to understand.

I will talk with you till you tire of me...

lol...

I have trouble with the word 'worship', I dont 'worship'...

I dont really acknowledge the Force, except for the conversations like this... I do pause to observe things, but, ooo, yea, 'worship' (as an ex-catholic) I got issues with that words definition.... Guess I need to go look it up in the dictionary, lol...

I am busy being in the moment, and BEING....

If that makes sense...

Okay, what about the example that someone worships money? They don't actually pray to it or sing songs to it... unless they're just a little wierd! hahahhahha

But there are people that worship money are there not?

Sure...

Oh,you didnt say "attachment" did you...

:lol:....

That could very well be the key to this… attachment! I had not considered that. Not just people being attached to labels, but theist being attached to their deities. Rather than marveling at the wonder of it all and existing to coincide with the “grand design” (so to say) they feel a need for a personal relationship with that witch is infinite and beyond their understanding. So they humanize it. :huh:

The humanized representation of the deity figure is the rejection of Atheist (Atheist Jedi)?
Added Atheist Jedi for clarification.

Wescli Wardest wrote: That could very well be the key to this… attachment! I had not considered that. Not just people being attached to labels, but theist being attached to their deities. Rather than marveling at the wonder of it all and existing to coincide with the “grand design” (so to say) they feel a need for a personal relationship with that witch is infinite and beyond their understanding. So they humanize it. :huh:

The humanized representation of the deity figure is the rejection of Atheist?

Yes....

I think it is...

MY OPINION is that to understand it, they attach a personality to it...

My car is is called Betsy (no, its a car not a girl)

Sharks are vicious (no sharks eat meat and take bites to taste things, [are they car eaters because they have found license plates in sharks])

Mice?spiders/ants are smart... No, they are persistent... Ok, they do have some intelligence, but, its but it is not like they 'know' when there is food availabel, they "stumble upon it" becasue they are constantly searching and foraging...

We humans like our personalities applied to things...

Gods are no different...

Jestor,

I talked in my post about belief, not worship. It seems like everyone is basing this on religion for a thing or a person. There is no concrete evidence that god exists, but he does because we "believe" in him, on your comments of sharks, it wasn't until the movie JAWS that people started to "believe" and fear what they did not understand which was Sharks. After JAWS people truly "believed" that all sharks are maneaters and go out of their way to attack humans, we now know this not to be entirely true, they attack because they smell blood in the water and think it is food, they attack because the splashing around makes vibrations in the water that attract them, and they attack surfers because their eyesight isn't the best and surfers look like seals. You call your car Betsy because you believe it to be a Betsy. Yes, we attach our belief to something we can understand, a man greater than ourselves, a Deity, and it then becomes real for us, but any religion or thought begins with a "belief". It is the attachment to something we can see or touch that makes us think it is real, and it reinforces that strength of belief. When it comes to religion, I am all kinds of messed up: 90% of my family was irish catholic, I went to a Baptist church growing up until my parents one day stopped taking me. I always "believed" in god and that church wasn't just a building but he was everywhere. I never was baptized until I lived in Louisana and was Baptized in a Pentacostal church. When my son Aiden was born, his mother and I wanted him blessed in the church but neither her belief ( she was raised Mormon) or mine would allow it because we were not married. My belief in what I believe in says this is wrong. This entire post is mostly about a belief, however we seem to be over-thinking it. Why is it so hard to just believe in something just because, and not because we need to "attach" it to anything, or have a reason behind it.

The 'worship' was directed toward Wescli....

I do not attach a personality toward things, and actually rant at my TV when people do that, lol...

My wife just shakes her head at me...:lol:...

They assigned personalities to sharks WAY back in the more primitive times too... Shark Gods, Bear Gods, Wolf Gods, Elephant Gods.... Or, Fire GOds, The Gods of Wind, the Tree Fairies, gremlins in your cars...

Prehistoric man (in my opinion) did it to better understand the world around him, to attach a value for others...

An "angry wolverine" would simply mean that they are prone to strike, and are protective, not necessarily that they are really pissed about something....

Wes and I were PMing and he said "I wonder how come no one else is joining in"... :lol:...

So, thank you...

Jestor wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: That could very well be the key to this… attachment! I had not considered that. Not just people being attached to labels, but theist being attached to their deities. Rather than marveling at the wonder of it all and existing to coincide with the “grand design” (so to say) they feel a need for a personal relationship with that witch is infinite and beyond their understanding. So they humanize it. :huh:

The humanized representation of the deity figure is the rejection of Atheist?

Yes....

I think it is...

MY OPINION is that to understand it, they attach a personality to it...

My car is is called Betsy (no, its a car not a girl)

Sharks are vicious (no sharks eat meat and take bites to taste things, [are they car eaters because they have found license plates in sharks])

Mice?spiders/ants are smart... No, they are persistent... Ok, they do have some intelligence, but, its but it is not like they 'know' when there is food availabel, they "stumble upon it" becasue they are constantly searching and foraging...

We humans like our personalities applied to things...

Gods are no different...

Sorta reminds me of when I was taking art in high school.
The Teacher went up to the board and drew a smiley face and asked one of the kid's what it was. They replied "happy?" and he said "no you idiot (in a joking manner) it's a drawing, drawings can't have emotion" and then went on to talk about how humans like to give things thoughts and feelings, and how even drawing the simplest eyes and mouth on something can make humans feel more connected or attached to it.

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.

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.

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:...