I'm going to begin this first post by drawing on a comment by Shaun. This started out as a comment on Blasphemy: A Blameless Crime?, but I found it turning out to be an excellent introduction for myself. The comment starts as follows:
Shaun, you said, "[I/Larro] think/hope/wish whatever, that God does not exist"
To be honest I could really care less about that. Really!
I've given up quite a long time ago about debating the existence of a god with the faithful. Not that I don't have any argument against it, but this: It's the whole point of faith. I can't argue against someones personal faith. If somebody feels so strongly in a belief, I am not even going to waste my breathe in convincing them otherwise.
Here is my position. I'm not out to debunk anybodies faith (as much as I relish the thought; and on occasion I may succumb to this). What I am about are, the social issues and how people of faith affect the current political and civil debate. This is ultimately what concerns me: this unseen and oft-times obfuscated interjection of religion and politics affects me as well as the next person. This is why atheists need to get their shit together and REALLY organize.
I guess what I am saying is that I am a very, very, very strict secularist. Don't get me wrong I am still a civil libertarian to a degree as well; kids can still pray in school of their own accord, I have no problem with that. Yes, contrary to bullshit arguments that there is NO prayer allowed in school, prayer itself is still allowed in schools here in the U.S.
I believe in freedom and liberty for all. If anybody wants to really know anymore about my views then feel free to ask and I will try to answer to the best of my ability.
Shaun, you said, "[I/Larro] think/hope/wish whatever, that God does not exist"
To be honest I could really care less about that. Really!
I've given up quite a long time ago about debating the existence of a god with the faithful. Not that I don't have any argument against it, but this: It's the whole point of faith. I can't argue against someones personal faith. If somebody feels so strongly in a belief, I am not even going to waste my breathe in convincing them otherwise.
Here is my position. I'm not out to debunk anybodies faith (as much as I relish the thought; and on occasion I may succumb to this). What I am about are, the social issues and how people of faith affect the current political and civil debate. This is ultimately what concerns me: this unseen and oft-times obfuscated interjection of religion and politics affects me as well as the next person. This is why atheists need to get their shit together and REALLY organize.
I guess what I am saying is that I am a very, very, very strict secularist. Don't get me wrong I am still a civil libertarian to a degree as well; kids can still pray in school of their own accord, I have no problem with that. Yes, contrary to bullshit arguments that there is NO prayer allowed in school, prayer itself is still allowed in schools here in the U.S.
I believe in freedom and liberty for all. If anybody wants to really know anymore about my views then feel free to ask and I will try to answer to the best of my ability.
76 comments:
Pretty good introduction. So, you are co-authoring this blog now? That's cool, I can't wait to hear what you two have to say.
So, do claim to know that there is no god? Or just choose to live as if there is none?
This is why atheists need to get their shit together and REALLY organize.
I just think that's funny because atheists must believe in chaos if they choose not to believe in God, so for an atheist to "get their shit together" presents quite a conundrum then doesn't it.
This is not a god issue with me. I don't really care if there is or not. Besides who is to say there's is the right and true one anyway. For all anyone knows, whoever this god being may or may not be, could very well applaud atheism. Who knows?
What it is about with me is people shoving it down my throat. And their unwillingness to recognize that people live their lives making their own choices, ie. free will.
As far as chaos. Whatever.
Larro, the problem with your philosophy is its illogical nature.
'You don't care if there is a god'? That is plain irrational. If there is a god, I am positive your apathy toward him/her/it, would not be perceived well. In fact, I am sure it will piss Him off!
So your apathy is blind foolishness.
On the other hand, if your like beast, and you've made the overt decision to disbelieve, then on what basis have you made that choice? Is it because someone did not present Christianity well? Is it because reality does not show enough order and logic to believe a god exists? What is it?
But to say 'you don't care' if a god exists or not, is the height of irrationality.
Its like coming to three branches in a road and you have to decide which to take. In my opinion, there are only 2, and one of them is an illusion. But for this lets go with three.
1. One branch leads to nothingness
2. One branch leads to 'heaven'
3. One branch leads to eternal lostness and separation from all happiness.
Now, in my mind, one does not exist, and in Beasts, thats the only one that exists. You say, 'you don't care'.
Well Larro, its the one decision that may mean the most to your existence. And figuring out which path to take is of utmost importance, and 'you don't care'?
Beast has made his choice, he is on the road leading to 'nothing', as he believes in oblivion after death, with nothing more than this life. (If he is wrong, it may be WAY worse) but that is his choice.
You say 'its not important enough to care about?
Makes no sense Larro.
It's funny how opinions of some people want to dictate how others live their life. I was wondering also Larro, do you think some people go to other religious (different than their own) blogs and tell them they are going to hell for eternity because they don't believe what (they) do?
Also, aren't you glad that we have the internet to get our shit together. :) Time to stop being afraid of backlash from society because we don't believe in gods.
hi larro
Free will IS what it is all about. The choice of each of us to seek & find the truth of our humanity. Who we are individually & collectively.
The philosophies of Christianity & other religions oppress & enslave our humanity by dictating to us who we are.
Christianity first oppresses us by telling us we are born enslaved to sin. Then it tells us it [Christianity] is the only way out.
This is a religion that if you read the history of it, is built on the back of ancient Near eastern mythology & the Jewish philosophy of exclusivity. Of course the concept is brilliant, thanks mostly to Paul. Constantine & other politicians moved it forward by recognizing the potential to exploit it.
All religions worth their salt are used by those in power to control the masses.
As far as those smart ass Christians, they think they got it all figured out, but what is funny about them is they aren't capable of an individual original thought.
You're not capable of staying sin free, so that's the idea behind Christianity being the only way out.
If you say Christianity is just something politicians exploit, I could say that atheism is what the devil is exploiting. There's potential in atheism too, see?
Sin free? Why should I?
I wine, smoke, and occasionally indulge in sexual escapades like a jolly good libertarian. Unlike the Christian, I do not get entangled with ancient, archaic notions of virginity, sainthood and the like.
There is only one life. Life is evanescent, fleeting and quite unfortunately, fraught with perils. One must seek utmost enjoyment with out inflicting undue damage and harm to fellow humans.
Live full, live free, and be merry. i will leave the sinless, sexless life to the Mother Mary wannabes and the Darth Vader look-a-likes.
Beast
Oh, the humor of it all!!!
In a comment, DRD said the following:
If there is a god, I am positive your apathy toward him/her/it, would not be perceived well.
My response is simple: Why? Why should any particular god take offense simply cause Larro doestn't care whether said god exists? Are gods inherently self-obssessed like that?
I doubt Larro cares whether I exist, either. (Though I think I'd have a better chance of convincing him I exist. ;)) And why should he? He's never met me in person? Other than seeing my occasional comments around the blogosphere? Am I so important that he has to care about my existence?
And with all respect to Larro, it's not like his apathy towards my existence really rocks my world all that much. While I suspect he's a decent sort of guy, I have other people in my life, and the apathy of one relative stranger in regards to me just isn't worth getting upset over. So are gods inherently more egotistical than me?
For the record, Larro, I just asked my gods, and they're perfectly okay with your apathy in regards to whether they exist. ;)
We may finally be beginning to see why you choose to ignore god. To indulge in sin.
I dispute that.
To indulge is bliss. As for ignoring God, God is not there to begin with. What we are talking about is a mirage: A deity that is never there.
Release yourself from your shackles of religion, Shaun. Be uninhibited. Be.......a libertine.
For a good guide to living a life of libertinage, try reading marquis de sade's book:"Justine and the misfortunes of virtue".
Beast
DRD; If there is a god, how the hell do YOU know how a god would feel about my disbelief? Who made you the mouthpiece of god?
Three branches in a road? I choose to go hiking.
I never said I was agnostic. I never said I wasn't an atheist. I don't care to discuss the existence of the Grand Cosmic McMuffin with people that can't be convinced otherwise. It's fruitless to do so.
L>T; Man, I couldn't agree more.
Mom, that's a good question. That would better be answered by a Christian. (Going to other peoples Churches).
Shaun; That's the thing. The devil? Who's irrational? I suppose next you'll say that schizophrenics and epileptics have the devil in them too and should be treated by exorcism rather than medical professionals?
Beast; Yep. You crack me up (Darth Vader look-a-likes)
jarred; That's a good point.
shaun; Who the hell invented sin anyway? It's a way to keep people in line (at least the idiots that haven't got a clue what's right and wrong). That's how sin works.
Sorry, the comment was short. I'm on lunch and I gotta go.
jarred
Let me clerify:
If there is a god, who is intentional, purposeful, and is responsible for creation, then, I am positive He would be very irritated with apathy. Do you have children? If so, do you like it if they ignore you?
This, of course, assumes a personal and intentional God, not an impersonal energy source with no intention or will. A god of this nature couldn't care less about whether we believe or not.
So, let me add the caveat to my supposition that 'if there is an intentional, purposeful, willful, God, He would be quite put off by our apathy. Of this I am certain.
If there is a god who does not care if we care about him, then its not a god in any sense at all, but maybe the Buddhists would disagree, since they tend to go with an impersonal 'energy'.
Tina:
In regard to why I come here...I think I have covered that. You seem to ask the same question lots of times.
Beast, if there is no god, finding utmost enjoyment should be the ONLY issue. Not causing harm or distress to others is illogical to say the least. Why should we care? The only issue is our individual happiness, if causing harm is a side effect, then so be it. Whats the issue with that?
Do you have children? If so, do you like it if they ignore you?
I don't have children, no. If I had children and they ignored me, I fully admit that I wouldn't like it. But I wouldn't get pissed about it. Nor would I become the vindictive and wrathful person you suggest a god would be. I would still be able to acknowledge my child's freedom to choose not to make me an active part of my life, even if it disappointed me.
jarred:
Not only wouldn't you like it, but in general, no one likes to be ignored or felt 'apathetic' about. I doubt those that treat you that way are invited to any feast you hold. If they are your child, punishment designed to bring them back into fellowship with you would be appropriate, if you love them.
I really did not suggest what method God would chose to deal with someone who ignored or was apathetic to them...I just said he would be pissed..or put off.
I did not say He would be vengeful or vindictive. I don't think as a human, if there is a god, that we can ascribe those traits to an omnipotent being, and really understand the cosmic significants of them in eternal terms...so I never claimed that..your imposing that on my comments.
In essense, if there is a god, its logical to assume he would not be at all pleased with apathy....hence, Larro's claim to 'not care' about whether there is a god, is illogical. That should be of first concern...then base the rest of your philosophies off of the atheistic world view.
Beast seems to try to do that, but he always throws stuff in like "no harm to others" which has no bearing on living life as an atheist, but points to an internal ethic that he cannot explain by his world view...in fact, it stands in contradiction to it.
DRD says:In regard to why I come here...I think I have covered that. You seem to ask the same question lots of times.
I don't seem to recall saying anything to you on this post DRD. My questions were aimed at Larro, his post said, if we have questions feel free to ask and he would try to answer them.
I doubt those that treat you that way are invited to any feast you hold.
You are correct, but the point is irrelevant. Larro isn't looking to get invited to any feasts (at least not any being held by any god).
If they are your child, punishment designed to bring them back into fellowship with you would be appropriate, if you love them.
I disagree. Again, my child would have a right to choose whether or not to associate with anyone, including me. Any sort of "punishment" would be manipulative and coercive. That's not love at all. That's abuse and putting my desires over someone else. I find the very idea abominable.
I did not say He would be vengeful or vindictive.
However, based on your comments so far, I'm inferring that your god has a one-way trip to hell planned for Larro. (If I'm wrong, please say so.) Eternal damnation is vindictive and wrathful in my book, no matter how you try to spin it. You're free to disagree with me on that point, but I argue that simply makes you willing to rationalize such horrors.
...then base the rest of your philosophies off of the atheistic world view.
Why should I base the rest (or any) of my philosophies off of the atheistic worldview when I'm not an atheist?
Ooops!
Tina:
I am one of those Christians posting..hence, your comment was directed at me
jarred:
In regard to my comment about invited to a feast...larro is not concerned with it, however, if the feast is the end goal...or rather, not being invited the object to avoid, then he should care (the feast is a metaphor so don't get too hung up on it)
In regard to your comment about disagreeing about punishing your kids. Wow. Have you ever been around a 6 year old that ignores direction from his/her parents? Not only is this behavior annoying, its completely devastating to the child. They grow up without any clue whats in store for them, and the loving thing to do is instill discipline in your child. If not, you will have ruined them in more ways than you can count. I will chalk this comment up to your inexperience here. Love included discipline, and sometimes that means punishment.
In regard to the one way trip:
I am purposely not using biblical or christian references, since you don't hold any stock in them. So, the idea of hell might simply be eternal seperation from what you were designed for. I am not sure if you classify that as punishment or not..but as a parent, if your child regects you enough, you will cut him/her off from your home.
If the alternative to your home is ok, then maybe its no big deal..unfortunately, I don't think thats so..but to not argue what "hell" is, nor ascribe traits to an omniopotent being that finite minds cannot grasp, is fruitless.
In regard to your not being an atheist:
I was answering your question as it related to larro. I did not say you were.
I said if larro wants to form a philosophy that is coherent, he first must decide if a god exists in his view or not, this is the basis of how we all view everything else. If not, then his world view can be based in a godless world (beast), but if he believes a god might exist, then apathy is certainly illogical. Its the most important subject to address.
Not sure where you fall jarred, cause you only answer for larro.
however, if the feast is the end goal...or rather, not being invited the object to avoid, then he should care (the feast is a metaphor so don't get too hung up on it.
The end goal for Larro's life is his to determine. Again, you're trying to force your desire about what his end goal should be upon him. I find this unethical. I'd find it equally unethical for a god to do, as well.
Have you ever been around a 6 year old that ignores direction from his/her parents?
But now you are painting a different picture. You are talking about an unruly child. Larro is neither a child nor unruly. He simply says he wants nothing to do with any god. You're now comparing apples and oranges, which doesn't work well at all.
So, the idea of hell might simply be eternal seperation from what you were designed for.
"Designed for?" So are people nothing more than machines designed to fill a role? I find that rather un-parent-like.
...but if he believes a god might exist, then apathy is certainly illogical.
I disagree. As I pointed out (half-jokingly, I admit), my gods are perfectly fine with Larro's apathy. There world will go on, and so will Larro's. Larro's apathy is only illogical if you assume a god exists who insists they follow him or "something will happen to them." And again, I argue that such a god is capricious, shallow, and generally unworthy of respect anyway.
Not sure where you fall jarred, cause you only answer for larro.
Actually, all of my answers have been for myself and from my own theistic standpoint.
DRD says>I am one of those Christians posting..hence, your comment was directed at me
Where and what comment? I didn't ask Larro in this post why religious people come here to this blog. I'm stumped, I have read and re-read comments on this post and still can't figure out where I asked that question.
Jarred:
Not at all apples to oranges. If there is a god, and he has rules, and larro decides "he doesn't care", then he is the unruly child, and the analogy stands.
In regard to forcing an end goal on larro:
Not at all, the end goal is universal. If there is no god, the goal is to enjoy this life as much as we can. If there is a god, hence an afterlife, then the end goal is simply to make sure our eternity is exactly the best it can be.
That would be EVERY humans goal..I am not imposing that on larro. Its one way, or the other, and logic dictates we chose one set of beliefs, and live by the reasonable outcome of those beliefs.
Design question:
Yes, as if we are created, we are not begotten of god. Humans beget humans, dolphins beget dolphins....but god would 'create' and not beget. We humans would create a robot or a picture, but we don't beget it. Therefore, IF there is a god, he would create us, and that implies design.
I don't know what the heck track you guys got off on. :)
Anyway I have something to say to shaun & drd about sin...
What is sin & who gets to define it? Christians of course. Sin is the concept Christians use to place blame on mankind(i.e. the sinful nature). It's used to convince us of our guilt. To justify God & to deal with the problem of evil.
According to Christian Doctrine,(correct me if I'm wrong) sin is ultimately turning away from God. Adam sinned by disobeying God. This sin was transmitted so all men after Adam had a defective nature. Although man had Free Will, the ability not to sin was not an option. Only by God's grace can man be saved and no longer sin.
This is an atheist point of view:
First Human nature is such that it needs boundaries, that is granted, But without God that nature is nothing but natural. It doesn't make us sinful or intrinsically bad, but without God the responsibility for everything that happens becomes ours. Evil does exist & for an atheist what this also means is that evil is a human affair, its our doing, Evil originates when we take what is special about others and turn it into something of no value. The holocaust is an example, the Jews were transformed into something less than people.
So Atheists cannot explain away evil & must take responsibility for it. Consequently, we are not slaves to sin or to God.
jarred said:
"And again, I argue that such a god is capricious, shallow, and generally unworthy of respect anyway."
Wow, so you can understand eternity. You can fathom the mind of a diety beyond your imagination, and if He demands recognition, from your human perspective, you can judge God as you have stated? This is the height of human arrogance. I am not pointing my finger at you jarred, I have heard this before, and always amazed that such finite minds think they can judge the infinite.
So, your gods, did they create this universe in your mind? Of course, this is all hypothetical anyway right? larro would not care, but I am curious.
Oh I see what the conversation is about now.
drd says
If there is no god, the goal is to enjoy this life as much as we can. If there is a god, hence an afterlife, then the end goal is simply to make sure our eternity is exactly the best it can be.
That would be EVERY humans goal..
drd, honestly! Do you realize how selfish that sounds? All the suffering & evil in the world so you Christians can loll about heaven?
Some of us atheists have higher goals then just living a hedonistic life or a hedonistic afterlife.
DRD; "'You don't care if there is a god'? That is plain irrational"
Sorry to say DRD, but we all don't live in DRD world.
IT
Tell me how you got that out of what I said?
How do you equate the suffering in the world so Christians can loll about in heaven? Where did that come from?
And: if your an atheist, what is your higher purpose than hedonism? and why? IT, your argument will totally fall apart if you stick to it. I would love you to argue this out to the end conclusion, and you will see how hopeless your position is. Please tell me what your life goal is if not hedonism.
Larro...you don't have to life in DRD world..how bout the world of common sense and logic?
All your suppositions hing on whether there is a god, or not and you don't even realize it.
"All your suppositions hing on whether there is a god, or not and you don't even realize it."
No, I've already said I don't give a shit about having that conversation.
Larro..good deep, thoughtful, and intelligent response.
If there is a god, and he has rules, and larro decides "he doesn't care", then he is the unruly child, and the analogy stands.
And this is one of the problems with your god. Unlike a good parent, he doesn't accept that his children can grow up and no longer need his discipline. Your god wants slaves and servants, not true children. The latter grow up into independent people.
Not at all, the end goal is universal.
Goals have to be set by someone. If a goal is universal, then it must be god who is setting it. So my argument about forcing goals onto us still stands.
Therefore, IF there is a god, he would create us, and that implies design.
Then why design us with free will.
Besides, you're assuming that design is always about "purpose" and function. I'm not convinced by that at all. I've worked with artists too much to buy the idea.
Wow, so you can understand eternity. You can fathom the mind of a diety beyond your imagination, and if He demands recognition, from your human perspective, you can judge God as you have stated?
I have the ability to reason, and I have an understanding of ethics. According to your belief, your god gave me those abilities. If your god thought I wouldn't use those abilities to consider his actions and judge whether he is deserving of my respect, then he didnt' think about it. I'm sorry, I don't give any being a pass on behavior I find unethical, no matter how eternal or powerful they claim to be.
So, your gods, did they create this universe in your mind? Of course, this is all hypothetical anyway right?
My gods certainly had a hand in the creation of this universe, yes. I wouldn't say they were the sole creators, though.
jarred
Who or what are your gods?
What else or who else had a hand in creation beside your gods?
jarred said:{i}"Unlike a good parent, he doesn't accept that his children can grow up and no longer need his discipline. Your god wants slaves and servants, not true children"{i}
This shows you don't really understand my God. Gods children will grow up and not need His discipline. Thats when we are given a 'new body', and we are complete. As for now, we are very very young, like a 2-5 year old, and thats being generous to us. So, like a good parent, He does still need to guide us and discipline us.
DRD: I find your god and your claims about him illogical. If he really is the kind of god you describe, I stand by my original statement that he is not someone I find worth associating with. If that means I don't get invited to his party, well, I think I'd prefer that.
My gods are some of the gods worshipped in Northern Europe (particularly Scandinavia and Iceland) before the region's conversion to Christianity.
As to who else has had (and still has) a hand in creation, I think that's drifting farther from the topic of this blog than necessary or advisable. I merely bring them up to point out that there are conclusions which can be drawn that lie well outside your narrowly and arbitrarily prescribed limits of "logic."
jarred:
Please be specific about what claims about my God you find illogical.
You believe in the Norse Gods? Like Odin,Thor and the like?
If you find my God unattractive, I am sure its because you just don't know Him, or see Him as He truly is.
I think I have explained well enough what I find illogical and unlikable about your god in the course of this discussion. I see no need to further expound on that topic.
drd this is what you said If there is no god, the goal is to enjoy this life as much as we can. If there is a god, hence an afterlife, then the end goal is simply to make sure our eternity is exactly the best it can be.
That would be EVERY humans goal.. sounds a bit hedonistic to me.
A higher purpose then hedonism:
The goal of some atheists, agnostics & secular humanists who love mankind is to continue the evolution of the human race, to further the search for truth, to advance the realms of human understanding to ease suffering & save the planet for our descendants.
You see drd we don't believe we can just rape the planet until it's unlivable then just be raptured away to wherever for eternity.
We don't believe war can be justified because God tells his people to go slaughter another Gods people. We consider mankinds great ability to evolve in his thinking & philosophies to get beyond these primitive & destructive notions of God.
We choose NOT to believe mankind is a worthless sinner if he doesn't have a God to set him straight.
Some of us feel When we look at mankind without equating God into the picture then maybe we can begin to solve our problems.
We believe your God is dead. We've moved beyond him, Science & human reason have killed him. Perhaps you just haven't figured that out yet?
& in defense of larro, who really doesn't need it, he is doing fine on his own. It takes human courage to step out & tackle life without God. Nevertheless...
you insist on putting him down.
Personally, I think this article is insightful & well written. I look forward to reading more of them.
IT
If we die, and cease to exist in any form of consciousness, why do you have these 'higher goals'. If life is a random accident, what reason would there be to have any goal at all? In fact, isn't the word 'goal' and atheism somewhat oxymoronic?
PS, the goal of a mature Christian is not as I described...but that is not the person I refer to as 'humanity'..I actually took out the mature Christian for that description sake. But you are correct, the definition I gave was very hedonistic. Humans are just that way.
Jarred..you did not answer....are you talking about the norse gods as the gods you believe in?
the goal of a mature Christian is not as I described...but that is not the person I refer to as 'humanity' what? are you trying to excuse mature Christians from humanity? Please explain.
The point of human existence is for humanities sake. The individual self & the collective self.
I must clarify something before i go any further i just realized that you might not know that I am both L>T & concerned citizen. I prefer to use L>T, but sometimes I forget & use my blog name. it's confusing I know but I'm just going to use L>T from now on on this blog, oK? but, if i forget you'll know it's me.
L>T concerned citizen
DRD: Sorry, I missed that question. Yes, I'm referring to the "Norse" gods. (Though I think the term "Norse" is a bit simplistic and not entirely accurate, which is why I didn't use it the first time around.)
LT
The point of human existence is an oxymoronic phrase when your underpinning philosophy is one of atheism. This clearly means that all we see is random meaninglessness. There is no other explanation needed, and none that can make sense.
There can be no 'point' to human existence if we are a collection of random molecules, assembled through random mechanism, giving rise to the semblence of order but with no real purpose or meaning, except that which we artificially impose through meaningless transmition of electrical impulses in our accidental and random central nervous system. These impulses are nothing more than organized randomness, and in the end, have no meaning at all.
Your existence has no 'point', and humanity is pointless. This is the end result of an atheistic philosophy.
A mature Christian is certainly human, all to much so, but a mature Christian realizes that this existence is not his own. We were created by another and for Another.
We do not believe that this life, or the one to come is about us at all. The Truth of the scriptures tells a Christian who understands them, that 'getting to heaven' is NOT our goal, but rather, its a by product or the Goal. This is to know and love God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Heaven becomes a by product, but our goal is to please our Father.
Many immature Christias use God as a utility belt for their own pleasure. Many Christians believe God is there for their pleasure, that Gods purpose is to provide us a good life here and in heaven.
This is an immature way to look at God, and its a mistake made all to often by young (in the faith) Christians.
the point of human existence w/out God according to drd: random meaningless. Your existence has no 'point', and humanity is pointless. This is the end result of an atheistic philosophy.
Also According to drd God must be defined as the Christian God. & according to drd truth is something that Christians have a monopoly on.
the point of human existence with God according to drd: for man to understand his life is not his own. a mature Christian realizes that this existence is not his own. We were created by another and for Another.
This is also according to drd's definition of God.
Christian philosophy dismisses mankind as having no value apart from God.
I have said before that i am an Existentialist. Existentialism is really about freeing mankind so that with personal freedom the issues of personal responsibility and conscious choices can be discussed. Existentialism supersedes primitive ideas of God.
LT
ALL truth is exclusive. Yours, and mine both.
You ignored the incongruity in yoru position. How do you justify this 'free will' if we are automatons, we are subject to our mechanisms that formed through blind chance. Yet your claim otherwise. This is completely contradictory. Do you realize this?
You hold to 2 truths, and they contradict one another.
What is wrong with contradiction? Religion is contradictory. How do YOU justify free will?
Besides, these are your words not mine if we are automatons, we are subject to our mechanisms that formed through blind chance.
I don't claim to have the answers to everything. I see my Life as a journey. An open-ended journey...
As intellectually honest & reality based as possible.
Christianity didn't work for me, period & if you think I didn't put the effort into it you'd be mistaken.
Speaking metaphorically; I walked in the door that said "You must be saved", put everything I could into the room, struggled with it for ten years. Did I talk to God? Yes. I thought I was talking to God just as much as you probably do. Did I feel the danger of & understand the concept of Satan? Yes.
So what happened? (you ask :)
To put it simply, I out grew Christianity with it's primitive superstitions & myths & reliance on manipulation by fear & guilt.
LT
What is contradictory in Christianity that cannot be explained with some learning and insight into the culture, and linguistics of the time?
What is wrong with contradiction?
Well, nothing if you don't mind being wrong.
LT, Christianity did not 'work' for you?
hmm,....you must have been missing the point then. Did someone share the Gospel with you when you were a Christian? or did they beat you up with the do's and don't's of behavior?
If so, you never really got the gospel at all. Thats very common with people who say what you said.
DRD to l>t; "did they beat you up with the do's and don't's of behavior?"
Hypocrite.
Yeah, that was a weird comment. Doesn't the bible say Don't kill, don't lay, don't covet.....just asking.
hypocrit? How do you come by that?
Just sounded good to type, because it makes no sense with what has been typed.
Tina:
Who amoung us does not covet, lust, and so on? Who amoung us 'loves our enemy as ourselves'?
The do's and don't's of scripture are there for a reason, but mostly to show us our need for a savior.
We know we cannot live up to what scripture tells us, and some Christians like to beat up on those they feel superior to....just like the pharisee's did in Jesus's day.
The Gospel (which is the good news) is that One came to die for the ungodly, not die for the godly, its the news that when we fail, another has come and not failed. Christianity not working is just a misunderstanding or a perversion of the Gospel. Its reversing the story...
Its not good news to me that I have to be 'perfect' or never sin..cause if thats the case, I am in BIG trouble.
I am always amazed at the people who say "It didn't work for me"..this is a clear sign that you never really heard the Gospel at all. Doctrinally, and spiritually you have been mislead by someone.
I find most often, someone has played the guilt card and thats a card that no one can live up too...so its easier to say "it didn't work"...
Sorry it happened to you. Just remember, it does say all those things..but you cannot point to anyone in scripture except Jesus that kept those rules...and no one today....so if your told the way to heaven is by the 'do's and don'ts' you were sorely mislead.
DRD
My thoughts on the Christian faith.
No one "beat" the Gospel shit into me, although I, as well as other kids who attended, were mostly subjected to indoctrination of the sort commonly witnessed in other fundamentalist churches.
The reason that I and most other atheists reject the church is not because we "went to the wrong church", so to speak: Rather, the Christian faith at large has nothing in common with reality.
You guys can preach about having faith, but how many of you really utilize faith in your mundane dealings? Do you buy a washing machine based on the assumption of faith? Do you blindly trust the bank or anyone else with your investments? No. & why do you have to exhibit such infantile behaviour when it comes to a deity who was so weak that he couldn't even defend himself when he got strung up like a decoration on a Christmas tree?
I think, DRD, your banter and arguments have been rehashed and reiterated by your fellow brethrens countless times. If religion works for you, fine. It just never works for the more rational-thinking people.
Beast
Beast, again, you have shown a huge misconception about 'faith'.
Christian faith is both reasonable, and based not in blind acceptance, but rather, based on 'evidence of the unseen' according to the writer of Hebrews.
Jeremiah reminds us to be in the world, but not of the world. We are certainly told to be good stewards of our time, money and relationships, and that is not based in any mystical 'faith', but rather, reason and logic, mixed with the world view knowing God is ultimately in control.
Your 'rehashing' is interesting, yet, as I have pointed out, atheism fails all tests of reason and logic. It does not remain cohesive when put to the test and deals with none of the perceivable reality. I have posted a number of points to this effect, and have been met mostly with 'why am I wasting my time', or 'we already talked about that', or 'you christians are so judgemental', or 'you chistians follow blind faith'. Yet, no real substance follows your claims or rebuttals.
The essays written, are frankly, rife with logical and factual errors, so much so I don't even have the time to rebut all of them.
Well at least I didn't get a bulls#$@ comment back like I do with Shaun. Thank you DRD, I'm still trying to understand some of this.
DRD:
You said:
"Christian faith is both reasonable, and based not in blind acceptance, but rather, based on 'evidence of the unseen' according to the writer of Hebrews."
Evidence of the unseen...is that even logical and reasonable in the first place? Will you buy a laptop from a shop that does not even bother to display even a replica of a laptop? Think again.
To be "in the world, and not of the world" is a incredibly obscure axiom. If you do not wish to be of the world, what do you want to be? An illegal alien? How moronic!
And since you are talking about rebuttals, I think the atheists here, including myself, have given you enough rebuttals, it is just that you refuse to see the logic of reasoning. Like Pascal admitted in his Pascal's wager, the choice of belief and disbelief can never be determined by the faculty of reason, and that itself is cause enough for second thoughts.
Beast
DRD; "did they beat you up with the do's and don't's of behavior?"
"The do's and don't's of scripture are there for a reason, but mostly to show us our need for a savior."
Hello? Hypocrite...
Our need for a saviour? Your need for a saviour!
"We know we cannot live up to what scripture tells us, and some Christians like to beat up on those they feel superior to..."
Living up to scripture? It's mumbo-jumbo DRD! It's not your fault you're a liar, because you don't even know you're lying. Blind faith. Hence: superstition.
"The Gospel (which is the good news)..."
I already know what "gospel" means DRD and it's not fucking "good".
"Its not good news to me that I have to be 'perfect' or never sin..cause if thats the case, I am in BIG trouble."
This to me sounds very much like license to sin. That it's ok to be "bad" because some unprovable mythological character died and said, "It's ok. I'll die for everything you've done or ever will do that's considered 'bad'"
This has got to be how the Italian mafia was so brutal. Because they could go to church and repent and be absolved in the eyes of god. Because some asshole (like you) sits behind a curtain that says so.
"...so if your told the way to heaven is by the 'do's and don'ts' you were sorely mislead."
"The do's and don't's of scripture are there for a reason..."
THE DO'S AND DON'TS' OF SCRIPTURE ARE THERE FOR A REASON!
Do you realize that you just contradicted yourself?
BEAST; "Do you buy a washing machine based on the assumption of faith?"
Actually, and I can't source it, but some people actually do base their everyday purchases on faith decisions.
DRD; "'evidence of the unseen'"
Do you realize how fucking stupid and moronic this sounds?
evidence of the unseen? Unseen evidence? It's like a prosecuting attorney holding up an empty ziploc bag declaring, "Behold! Exhibit A, the murder weapon!"
This here is why you'll never "get" atheism DRD. You are a Christian, a believer in something of which I don't ascribe to.
You are here to validate your faith and that's fine. I'm here to validate mine as well. The similarity is the fact that one of us claims to be right. The difference is that I'm not promising any punishment or retribution for not seeing things my way. Do you understand yet? I doubt it.
In the least you have proclaimed that atheists are:
1)illogical
2)out of touch with reality
3)failing in reason
4)misconceived
5)etc...
Hence I must come to the conclusion that you view atheists as inferior. Yep, and I think you are as well. The difference is that I use my own thoughts and life experiences to inform my opinion of people, not somebody else's supposed two-thousand-year-old thoughts and life experience. If you want to live your life based in that, that's fine with me. But, please don't shove it down other peoples throats. It really insults other peoples intelligence. It assumes that they don't know how to think for themselves.
this is a clear sign that you never really heard the Gospel at all. Doctrinally, and spiritually you have been mislead by someone.
Thank you drd for pointing out to me what an idiot I am.
Why is the idea of someone actually progressing beyond your religion so alien?
I don't generally lose my cool but that kind of arrogance makes me angry. It is really the height of of closemindedness.
I was one of you once & you can't even acknowledge that.
I have to stop talking to you before I compromise my own ethics & say something I'll be sorry for later.
HELLO EARTH TO LARRRROOOO:
My presupposition is that there is a God who demands perfection, and yours is there is no god. My comments are based on my notion, and yours on your notion. If there is a God, then clearly YOU need a savior every bit as bad as I do....your being the hypocrit not to recognize this simple fact
Maybe you just don't know the definition of that word, you seem to be using it as a non sequitar.
Larro said:
"Living up to scripture? It's mumbo-jumbo DRD! It's not your fault you're a liar, because you don't even know you're lying. Blind faith. Hence: superstition."
What exactly is this larro? Its looks like irrational rantings to me. There is nothing of semblance of intelligence is this remark. How does "living up to scripture" illicit this 'mumbo jumbo' from you?
Larro said:"I already know what "gospel" means DRD and it's not fucking "good"."
Really Larro? So, whats not good about it? Please try to be reasonable and a little less emotional..it seems hard for you.
Larro
Regarding your comments on the 'do's and dont's comment I made.
How is this a contradiction?
I am starting to think your just having a hard time following this conversation...is it to philosophical?
Please show me how I contradicted anything in my remark. (in fact, I dare ya, you can't do it)
Larro, another thing:
Your comments on 'evidence of the unseen'..again, I am not sure your thinking clearly today.
Are you saying there is no evidence of things unseen? In science I can give you thousands of such examples. In space we had evidence of 'dark matter, and dark energy', due to a gravitational effect on light. For years and even now, it was 'unseen'...
For less 'deep' examples, hows about wind, or air? do you see it? NO..you see and feel its effects.
How about your brain? Do you see it, do you see the evidence it exists? Ok, don't answer that one, maybe not. LOL...just kiddin, levity here, don't take it personal.
DRD; My point is that I don't need your fucking savior. You assume I need to be saved from something I don't believe in. That's fine for you to think that, I have no particular qualms about you expressing that opinion. However, as I am a secularist first and foremost, I have a deep seated resentment for people like you pulling the political strings in my public (and in some cases my private) life.
I have stated on numerous occasions that I've done with debating the existence of a god or gods with the "faithful". There's no need for me to explain my position (I think you know very clearly where I stand on this...maybe not). Simply put, as is evident with the commentary back and forth here, it keeps going around in circles; back and forth with the same shit over and over.
I suggest you go back and reread this post.
If, after that, you feel the need to impress upon me your "evidence" of gods existence whilst completely ignoring the topic at hand then you will summarily be ignored as well (maybe...maybe not; if I feel particularly miffed I may verily throw some expletives your way).
Do you follow me? Give up the fucking metaphysical bullshit with me. I don't fucking care! As much as you think and have "faith" that it relates to me, it doesn't. Not to me. You can call my opinion a belief system or a "faith" unto itself, but it still remains an opinion; JUST LIKE YOURS! No matter how much you spout about your so-called "evidence", it is in itself still simply your opinion, no matter where you got your "evidence" from.
If you're looking for a debate about the existence of god, you're not going to find it with me.
Because:
1) I don't want to "convert" people to believe what I opine. Only that they respect it and take it for what it's worth to them.
2) I have come to realize that I can't and don't care to sway people from their own opinion in this regard (the whole "god thing"). I'd rather let them have their "faith". As much as I don't relate to it, and in some cases despise the sheepishness of such views, I recognize that this is the "color" of humanity.
3) You don't "get" me. You sit there trying to rationalize how to argue with me and convert me to your "faith" when I've already stated that it's a non-issue with me. What the fuck?
I'd rather know your opinion about abortion, gay marriage, separation of church and state, etc...essentially civil liberties. I'd rather read your opinion on foreign and domestic policy. If then you choose to put forth your perspective in regard to your opinionated "faith" view and how it pertains to the topic at hand so be it. Please, leave the fucking metaphysical debate out of the equation with me. At least ingratiate me in this regard.
Thank you, Larro.
CORRECTION: I said: "You are here to validate your faith and that's fine. I'm here to validate mine as well." Replace "faith" with "opinion".
DRD; "How does "living up to scripture" illicit this 'mumbo jumbo' from you?
Mumbo-jumbo = bullshit. Complete bullshit. Here I defer to George Carlin.
It seems common here, that when the intellectual currency gets too steep, people run.
Larro, you want social issues discussed, yet fail to acknowledge that your social agenda is completely subordinate to your 'philosophy' of atheism. Its all tied in and cannot be extricated.
You don't want to discuss or even address issues that your have brought up in response to posts, once the holes in your logic have been uncovered.
My opinions on foreign affairs is very conservative, as is my view on gay marriage and abortion. Yes, this comes from my world view which is based in Christianity. If I state my views, you will just argue against them from your 'secularist/atheist' world view, and I defend them from my Christian world view.
Instead, why don't we get to the root of the real issue instead of dancing around the tangential issues?
Answer: you don't want to be challenged on your foundational world view, because it would up-end your opinions in so many areas. Your closed to this idea and rebel strongly against it mainly because your not capable of defending the secular world view with any clarity. Not you perse', rather, this world view is illogical/irrational, and self-defeating. So, this is not a comment about you, rather your underlying position.
No need to get too smug, DRD.
You haven't won anything yet, as far as I am concerned.
Your replies to Larro have already been adequately addressed in my post on the Pascal's Wager, who, in his religious fervor, conceits that reason is not a faculty that can be used in the choice of belief from non -belief.
DRD, if you wish to debate, do it in a nice way. Your condescension is again noted.
Beast
Beast:
I haven't won anything 'yet'...I love the freudian slip...nice!!
Freudian slip? Alright,then. I will readjust the statement.
You will never win anything. How's that sound to you, loser?
Beast
How does it sound? Like a man in retreat, looking for an exit before he has to admit his defeat.
Thats how it sounds.
DRD:
First of all, there was no "Freudian Slip" in my previous statement. Second of all, since it doesn't pay to be civil, then perhaps you may take delight in being scoffed as a buffoon who masquerades as a doctor.
DRD, if you are really a doctor, tell me where you practice, so that if I do frequent your vicinity I know which doctor not to look for when I am sick. I don't need a stupid doctor like you to kill me. Life's too short to take such crazy risks.
Beast
I would not take you as a patient..sorry, patient list is closed.
PS, I have no need to masquarade, it is what it is, or it isn't what it isn't...the facts are plain to see, for anyone reading your and my posts.
PSS I agree, it was not a freudian slip...you were conscious of the inevitable, it was not an unconscious statement.
Curious. I thought all doctors are committed to caring for patients, irregardless of their religious affiliation?
Not taking the Hippocratic oath seriously, eh, Dr D???? Are you even a real doctor in the first place?
Beast
DRD; "you don't want to be challenged on your foundational world view, because it would up-end your opinions in so many areas"
I will verily turn this around on you. Hmm?
Beast, my oath does not obligate me to see anyone, only to do no harm to those I see, hence, I won't see you.
You see, in the USof A, in capitolism, we are free to see who we please, when we choose to see them. Maybe your part of the world is different. My choice not to see you has nothing to do with religious affiliation. In fact, I am sure many atheists have crossed my treatment tables.
larro, turn it around on me? You are welcome too, I am thrilled to explore the ramifications of my world view.
However, when I have tried to do that with you, you have run, declaring you have no interest in discussing it....so, which is it?
Post a Comment