Atheism can be logical or illogical. Logicality seems to depend on the unbeliever’s reasoning. We perhaps all heard of logical and illogical claims from atheists. Some are good, some are bad. But theists and deists could be in the same boat. Christianity, for example, can also be illogical or illogical in its reasoning. Again, here, logicality seems to depend on the believer’s reasoning (if they have correct premises and conclusions).

It is interesting that Christianity calls the human-God, Jesus, Logos, where we get the word “logic” from. This, in some way, makes Christianity “logical” by default. We could, then, call atheism more anti-logical (a rejection of (a) Logos) than illogical (an absence of sound reasoning). I don’t know if we can call Christians anti-logical in this context.

Okay, my error for not sticking with your definition. So would you say richness, then, gives those who are rich a great sense of leisure instead of labor, and self-sustenance instead of assistance? Or do you think richness would be more than these things?

Are you saying a person should have all these things to be considered rich? Just want clarification.

and never strives for anything that can be taken away, or desires any more than s/he already has. — 180 Proof

The last part of your statement makes me think of someone who is content with what they have. And by "strive," do you mean "to work too hard for something?"

I use to think richness could be enough money. But what if a person does not have to pay the bills because of government assistance or welfare. This person gets bills paid because of a lack of money. Why should this person not be considered rich?

hegemonic, neoliberal, military-police-prison-pharma-industrial complexes — 180 Proof

You make a good point. So how should we view the freedom of the people who control the "status quo systems" you mention?

I think humans usually search for some sort of stability. But this stability is difficult to achieve for several reasons. Sometimes self-interests are a part of our search. And other times, stability cannot happen because events disturb it. Many times these events happen unexpectedly. Or they have an unexpected effect on humans. When this happens, humans sometimes come up with a method to deal with such events. Then a lot of the times they write about it. This is probably why ‘how-to’ books are very popular. But a large part of our perpetual writing about how to behave comes from trying to figure out how to deal with people and events that are out of our control.

Thanks for sharing your story. And sorry to hear about your son. I agree, people should one day be ready to accept the possibility that such a thing might exist. I think we all at some time search for something that not only makes sense but is life-changing.

Don't misunderstand me. I am all for a leap of faith. But faith is trust in or believing in something. So if I have faith in something I cannot intellectualize, that is the same as having faith in a non-thing (nothing). It seems there should be an object to my faith. Though there might be a lack of bridges so that I have to leap, at least I should understand there is another side I can land on and that this other side can handle me jumping on it and won't crumble. In other words, I dare risk the chance of having faith in the wrong Absolute. At any time I could deny intellectualization and transcend this non-intellectualization as the Absolute. Thus, the Absolute becomes anything I cannot think of.

I wish I could take credit for but these ideas are thousands of years old. — synthesis

Okay. This then makes me think of the non-intellectual, God, or Absolute as a possession. By possession I mean even the non-intellectual or incomprehensible is a part of the human world, an idea in the mind, not the world or mind of the Absolute. For instance, can the Absolute say anything is non-intellectual? Does the Absolute call anything else Absolute? What I am trying to understand is if we see the Absolute as in or coming from our limited minds, what makes it something different from a very human thing, not transcendental? What makes this leap of faith to the Absolute different from an escape or invalid reversal of the non-intellectual?
.

The Absolute is that which we cannot know in any way except by the fact that (intellectually) it's the only thing that makes sense (well isn't that paradoxical). In order to get to the point where you can realize this, you must do the work necessary by enabling yourself to see things as they truly are. There is no intellectual pathway to this point. Meditation is one way to get there — synthesis

I think I understand your point a lot better now. So my next questions may be for another thread. But why is it worth the work, faith, or meditation to realize the Absolute? What does the Absolute do for us if anything? What is its relationship to the relative or does it explain away the relative at all? Or, when we realize the Absolute, what happens then?

I think you've got this backward. The absolutes are ideals, they are within your mind. Things outside your mind are relative. "All things knowable (intellectual) are relative." is an absolute which your mind has for some reason produced. "God" is an absolute which human minds have for some reason produced. — Metaphysician Undercover

So if I understand you correctly, God is an idea and ideas are absolutes. So God must be an absolute? If so, are you also saying that since absolutes are things we know, we also know God? If that is what you're implying, how do we know God or what does know mean regarding absolutes?

If the Absolute is non-intellectual, it is irrational. So do you mean unintelligible? If that is what you mean, how can I think of the Absolute if it is unintelligible? For instance, I can think of a 100-foot pineapple or a clear apple. And such thought does not make these things Absolute. But what if I cannot think of clear water or a 100-foot building? What if such is beyond my intellectual capabilities? Does this failure in thought make the clear water and tall building Absolute? In other words, if we know the Absolute only by its unintelligibility definition, the Absolute can be anything independent of thought. In this sense we deify or re-categorize the limits of human knowledge as God or meaninglessness.

Our relationship to or distance from the Absolute is relativity. Although this distance might create unintelligibility, this distance and relationship is relative. But you say, “there is no relative and no Absolute.” I wonder what you mean by this. I think I agree with you on the second point—no Absolute—because even this Absolute is relative to us in some sense. The Absolute could be an incorrect conception of something never meant to be or serve as a concept.

As far as the boat of knowledge and river analogy you gave, I would keep carrying the boat just in case I have to go back across the river again because I forgot something. I might carry the boat because there is a larger river just ahead to cross.

Humans have a desire for clarity: to know something as true, whether that is the definitions of “Absolute” or “Relativity.” For instance, I know I talk to you and you exist in my world. Anything other than this knowledge is as unsure as the clues I give in response to you. Much of what you last stated seems true to you, and is reflected in my initial reply. But that you say you do not understand me cannot rid us of our relationship to the truth. And this: the relationship (the relativity) to the truth is as Absolute as things get. We both have clues we are relative to the truth, although the truth evades us. My key point is that the Absolute is a relationship (relativity), not knowledge. So again, if you have “no clue,” we still have a relationship (relativity), and this is Absolute.

Knowing truth is unnecessary for truth to exist or for one to search for it. What is not relative and absolute is the ability to seek truth. Such a search for truth requires a measure of faith. But this search, in a sense, assumes that truth exists. Yet again, if we do not know what truth is, we do not have to know it exists to search for it. Now this makes a search for truth sound meaningless, if we are not sure it exists. But this unsure search is where relativity comes in. That is, relativity, as I understand it, is the relation between me and truth. This relativity (the relationship between me and truth) seems as absolute as truth itself. Of course this relativity might not be the Truth most seek. But it (relativity) is something to consider as truth. Although, as you say, this Relativity changes, it has a constancy in relation to humanity. And I would even say this relativity does not go away with knowledge of the Absolute but is elevated even more.