The Atheist and the Theist

The Atheist tells me there is no deity.  The Theist tells me there is a God.  With all due respect to each, I personally maintain that neither knows what they are talking about.

How can I know there is no god?  Unless I can travel the universe and transverse all realms in order to explore and investigate, how can I rule out the possibility that there is a deity?  Even then, how could I explore such depths and know that just because said deity is not “here” at this moment, that such was not “there” at another?  If it be the case that said deity is invisible, then how can I rule out the possibility that such actually does exist?  The Atheist says there is no deity; I maintain that I lack the evidence and the wherewithal to draw such a conclusion.

How can I know there is a god?  Never have I seen such, nor have I ever heard the voice thereof.  Now, some might say that written records from such are both communication from the deity and confirmation of the existence of the same. Yet there is no evidence that any writings written in the name of heavenly authority are actually transcribed from some divine being in the heavens.  Anyone can claim that their writings are of divine origin; were I to make such a claim about this very article, would such prove that there actually is a god?  The Theist says there is a deity; I maintain that I lack the evidence and the wherewithal to draw such a conclusion.

Speculations as to the existence or non-existence of non-evident beings is a waste of time.  In fact, here I sit on a Sunday afternoon when there is football to be watched and laundry to be done, and what do I do?  I offer you my thoughts as to time wasted on speculative theories.   Just so I did not completely waste these past 30 minutes of my life writing this critique of time wasted on speculative theories, allow me to close with a brief statement as to my beliefs:

I believe in the genuine goodness of the original nature of all humanity.

I believe that if there is a god, that the existence of such alters not the fact that the original nature of all humanity is genuine goodness.

I believe that if there is no god, that the genuine goodness of the original nature of all humanity remains self evidently true nonetheless.

Having opened this article with a rather abrupt critique of the Atheist and the Theist, I shall close with this observation of each:

The original nature of the Atheist and the Theist is that of genuine goodness, regardless of the existence of or the non-existence of a supreme being.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “The Atheist and the Theist

  1. I agree that both the believer and non believer comes from the same source and will further elaborate in your comment with Lao Tsu’s teaching #1,
    Tao Te Ching teaching 1.

    The Tao that can be told
    is not the eternal Tao.
    The name that can be named
    is not the eternal name.

    The unnamable is the eternally real.
    Naming is the origin
    of all particular things.

    Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
    Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

    Yet mistery and manifestations
    arise from the same source.
    This source is called darkness.

    Darkness within darkness.
    The gateway to all understanding.

  2. Indeed. Personally, I have always thought that if a divine, creative force exists, it is most likely impersonal. Therefore, I have preferred Lao Tzu’s description of Tao as basically an organic, unified, cosmically agreed upon set of principles. Tao as I understand it, is basically ‘God’ as a blueprint, as a design rather than as a designer or architect of the universe.

    And either way it doesn’t change anything.

    • I agree on the premise “if”, “then”, I definitely think the Easterners have a more realistic grip on their theories than most Westerners seem to have. I find no reason whatsoever to believe in a personal god. On the other hand, there is reason to the theory of the tao. I dont believe wholeheartedly in such, but my inclinations are that whether “divine” or “natural”, or both; that there is a natural rhythm to the universe. Being in tune with such is harmony; I maintain that when one is “out of psynchs” so to speak: angry, depressed, sad, giddy, silly, etc etc; that they are in fact “out of psynch” with this unnamed rhythm (I refer you on this point to Tao Te Ching, which you just produced a fine commentary of). Another good piece to study, and you are most likely aware of this, is “The Doctrine of the Mean”. “The Mean” of which Confucius spoke was in many ways “the tao”.

      Thanks for your comment and for your site,

      Dave

  3. Hello there Dave, I’ve missed your posts…Happy New Year to you and many blessings for 2012. You so deserve this award and I think you rock too…here’s to an abundant year to come…Jane

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s