Atheosis

[Zinkovich]

I do not entirely view myself as an atheist anymore, but one of those in a state of atheosis.

Atheosis, coming from the Greek root "Atheos", refers to a state of never contacting the divine or feeling its prescence, and the difference of connotation of saying "I am atheist" and "I am in a state of atheosis" is quite clear- the one who views it as a state does not view his predicament as an ideological constant within all his idoelogical decisions but rather a simple fact concerning the sum of his experiences.

My atheosis was not something I woke up one morning and decided I had, but something I always acknowledged even when I was a Christian- God never seemed to contact me, but always my friends who would wriggle and shout for God and the heavens in their indecipherable gibberish during chapel services. Drugs never gave me a trip because of the somewhat unique structure of my brain chemistry, but I would watch some of those aorund me supposedly unite with the universal conciousness for a brief second and spill to me platitudes of what they saw. In short: my atheosis is not a ideology or viewpoint- it is a fact I acknowledge concenring my self and the sum of my life experiences.

So:
-Why should I go back to referring to myself as atheist, when I do not feel the same way concerning the ideological implications of my state of atheos, and am rather heistant to make conclusions concerning the cosmological nature of the universe based on the lack of divine experience in my life?

-Am I wrong in acknowledging my state? Why should I deny this lack of contact, and clutch onto theists so-called "truths" I've never seen in any way implicated in front of me?

-Furthermore, why do some insist on implying that the state often behind the ideological stance of atheism is one which is unjustiable, when in fact it seems completely justified by it being possible for one to go their entire life without divine contact?

[another day]

Have you ever considered that you don't experience divine contact because you are simply too intelligent to accept something that doesn't make sense to you? People who experience "divine contact", do so by way of the placebo affect. They believe something to be true and so they will experience those feelings.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Zink -Why should I go back to referring to myself as atheist, when I do not feel the same way concerning the ideological implications of my state of atheos, and am rather heistant to make conclusions concerning the cosmological nature of the universe based on the lack of divine experience in my life?

Don't. You're beyond labels. You are making the most intelligent conclusion regarding the divine. You are acknowledging that you have no experience with it but you are also accepting that your lack of experience doesn't mean non-existence, it just means you don't know for sure.

I think it's admirable that someone can be honest with themselves about this.

Quote by: Zink -Am I wrong in acknowledging my state? Why should I deny this lack of contact, and clutch onto theists so-called "truths" I've never seen in any way implicated in front of me?

Absolutely not!! You aren't clutching. Again, you're acknowledging the possibility that maybe some of those other people have really had a divine experience that there is no way to prove or share with you.

Quote by: Zink -Furthermore, why do some insist on implying that the state often behind the ideological stance of atheism is one which is unjustiable, when in fact it seems completely justified by it being possible for one to go their entire life without divine contact?

Thus the paradox that most atheists deny.

That maybe, just maybe, they life their whole life without that contact.

Again, their lack of experience is, for them, proof. That's fine if they keep that personal, but to think their personal lack of experience means that others are stupid or crazy is the more foolish and ignorant position.

Quote by: another day Have you ever considered that you don't experience divine contact because you are simply too intelligent to accept something that doesn't make sense to you? People who experience "divine contact", do so by way of the placebo affect. They believe something to be true and so they will experience those feelings.

Yet if someone has truly had a divine experience, they can never prove it to you.

I think Zink has, through his own process, found the only right answer:

Just because I don't have any experience doesn't mean it's non-existant.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Zinkovich So: -Why should I go back to referring to myself as atheist, when I do not feel the same way concerning the ideological implications of my state of atheos, and am rather heistant to make conclusions concerning the cosmological nature of the universe based on the lack of divine experience in my life?

You're starting to lose the emotional attachment you once had to the Christian / theism meme. I recommend you do a lot of logical thinking, reading and examination.

No one feels god, Zink.

People just convince themselves that really good feelings they have are somehow induced by god.

If I were going to start a religion, one of the first things I'd do is create a doctrine that took credit for any positive feeling & circumstance you could think of. Get a raise at work? It's my god. Having a good morning? It's my god. Feel a tingling at the back of your neck and a manic adrenalin rush? It's my god. Anyone who pointed out how obviously flawed this reasoning is, well... I'd just tell them they're in denial... or that my complete lack of evidence "doesn't prove anything".

It's just hype.

-Am I wrong in acknowledging my state? Why should I deny this lack of contact, and clutch onto theists so-called "truths" I've never seen in any way implicated in front of me?

If that's the sate you're in, why WOULDN'T you acknowledge it? Christianity (and most religions) prize and exalt blind faith. A theist would probably tell you that you're having a "crisis of faith" and something about how god loves you. I've never heard anything in that argument beyond, "look really deep inside and do your best to convince yourself that god is real even though you understand / suspect / know he isn't"

-Furthermore, why do some insist on implying that the state often behind the ideological stance of atheism is one which is unjustiable, when in fact it seems completely justified by it being possible for one to go their entire life without divine contact?

Divine contact doesn't exist. People are people. As an atheist, I experience the same depth of emotion as anyone else save one: delusion. There is no evidence that anyone at any time has had any form of divine contact. Part of theism is convincing you that it's "noble" to stick to faith even when you feel this way.

Don't give in to the propaganda.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Zhavric If I were going to start a religion, one of the first things I'd do is create a doctrine that took credit for any positive feeling & circumstance you could think of. Get a raise at work? It's my god. Having a good morning? It's my god. Feel a tingling at the back of your neck and a manic adrenalin rush? It's my god. Anyone who pointed out how obviously flawed this reasoning is, well... I'd just tell them they're in denial... or that my complete lack of evidence "doesn't prove anything". It's just hype.

Well said.

You might as well compare a person who doesnt believe in unicorns to a person that thinks 'well, ive never seen one, but that doesnt mean that they dont exist'. its the same deal.