Joshua Ryan Dellinger: Blackmailing, dishonesty, and stalking (what else ya got?)

Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7587
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger: Blackmailing, dishonesty, and stalking (what else ya got?)

Joshua Ryan Dellinger is a blackmailer a liar and a stalker? A Christian defender who claims to agree with RRS? A philosophy student that's a product of a Christian Southern education?

If you're a Christian who's happy to see Joshua Ryan Dillinger willing to do whatever it takes, including lie, to stand up for Jesus, you should also know that Joshua has attacked Republicans for attacking gay marriage. (story here)

 

Over the last 24 hours, Kelly, myself, and all of you have been under threat from Joshua Ryan Dellinger a soon to be graduate of UNCC who has said...

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I am documenting every last letter I send (one daily until you either formally decline for legitimate reasons - i.e., you're scared - or until we have secured an agreement) and will continue to post public exposes of your lack of fortitude. I consider your lack of response (and complete lack of rationality) to be one of the more blatant though still mildly entertaining ironies your organization has provided me.

So here it is, the public response on behalf of our radio show. I will waste 30 minutes of my time succumbing to your blackmail threat, you win, harraser. In order to do so I will be posting Kelly's response to you so as to save me time. Kelly wasted 30 minutes last night responding to you, and I refuse to double up with more wasted time over a simple blackmail threat. The following is the private message she sent to you through nowpublic.com, I am posting the content of your letter only because it's so similar to what you posted in public and because you've threatened us.

[edit in after the fact, I did in fact waste about an hour on this. Consider your blackmail/ultimatum effective, ya fucking asshole!]

Before I go on, you should know that if you had actual stones you and your powerful would arrange a text debate here with the community in which some of the radio co-hosts would be likely to weigh in. We'd probably even give you a thread to just go crazy in without rules, seeing as how there's no fucking way you'd be able to function within the rules. Or better yet, you and your team would just start a thread in athest vs theist like the rest of the people with a fucking clue.

 

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"Let me begin by saying I don't expect you to respond. RRS has a way of disregarding its more equipped and capable challengers. I have written before only to be flatly overlooked. This fact signifies only cowardice on the part of RRS. Taking someone like Dawkins (who has perpetually declined to debate more intelligent adversaries) as an exemplar, I don't suppose I should be surprised."

Kelly says...

Well, I have no idea who you are, and who exactly has disregarded you, but I am certainly not personally responsible for that. I do not intend to defend Dawkins, but just since I'm here, you're not accurately representing his position. He does take debates (although I don't feel it is his strong suit), just not with creationists. Frankly, it is intellectually vacuous and doesn't deserve his time.

 

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"I have observed the RRS for some time, taking note of the various fallacies that are routinely decried and then mercenarily employed."

Kelly says...

Such as?

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"My question is this: do you really want to help others be freed from the grip of religion? If so, it would seem that you (and others) should be a leading example. As such, you are constrained to operate solely within the strictures of logical, coherent, legitimate argumentation. I do not see this taking place, and this is most likely why RRS is the laughing stock of most erudite circles. Yes, you have Dennett and Dawkins. Neither are taken very seriously by even budding students of philosophy and/or anthropology."

Kelly says...

Yes; and no, I'm not. I'm constrained to operate solely in the way that I determine, and you are free to criticize it as you see fit. I know many in the "erudite" circles who respect us and realize that our purpose is not necessarily the same as theirs, and that our audience is not the same, either. It takes all types to appeal to a varied populace.
As far as Dennett and Dawkins, they are widely regarded as excellent in their respective fields except in religious circles, so I'm assuming that by "budding students of philosophy and/or anthropology" you mean dilettantes who don't know their names.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"If you wanted to appeal through authority or popularity to young, impressionable types, why not employ the assistance of Quentin Smith? Quite simply put, I believe he would remain parsecs away from this site and all its stated goals, most chiefly owing to the extremely poor argumentation (rank ad hominems abounding) and sub-par presentation."

Kelly says...

I have no idea who that is, either. I cannot make any statement on your opinion of his potential reaction to us as a group. I also would like to remind you that an insult is not necessarily an ad hom. I can critique an argument and then insult somebody as long as the insult isn't taking the place of a valid counterpoint. In case you need an example:
1: Yahweh exists.
2: Prove it. I have seen no evidence and besides, he's logically incoherent.
1: I just know it. I've seen people change and I feel him in my heart.
2: That's not evidence. You're a moron. (not an ad hom--just an insult)

1. Yahweh exists.
2. Well, you're a moron. (ad hom)

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"Would you engage in argumentation with William Lane Craig? No, I do not think so."

Kelly says...

I certainly would. He refuses to debate anybody without a doctorate. Bitch at him.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"Browbeating teenagers and lesser minds into conformity with your own agendas is not only vile - it is the very practice which you deprecate."

Kelly says...

Well, that's not what we do, so I don't get your point. I have no "agenda" and I can't "indoctrinate" somebody into not believing in god. I can't scare them with the fear of hell and eternal punishment or a sadistic voyeur watching my every move. Not the same.
I also think that men like Ergun Caner and Matt Slick would find it amusing that they are considered either teenagers or our mental inferiors.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"I would presume that since you are so secure in your current belief that you have answered all the questions that standardly assail the theologian, the philosopher, and the armchair enquirer. I include among these all cosmological arguments, all crucial matters of epistemology and metaphysics, and a comprehensive certainty concerning the methods of science. Your positivist positions notwithstanding, I ask you: what is your response to the Kalam cosmological argument? If you are unfamiliar with this, I should say I am shocked. One who not only eschews a particular position but vehemently seeks its destruction should certainly be expected to be familiar with it."

Kelly says...

I have no belief, but anyway...I have answered all the questions that pertain to the necessity of belief in a god that I have encountered to my satisfaction. Does that mean I know everything or think that I do? No. That is patently ridiculous. Nevertheless, one is forced to make a decision based on the evidence that one has at the time, and if one is honest, one will remain open to new evidence as it appears.


The Kalaam cosmological argument is just a sophisticated reworking of parts of Aquinas' cosmological argument. It is practically the same, just clothed in jargon and terminology designed to impress people who don't know better. His whole impossibility of an actual infinity is the best thing he has going, but that is not from a mathematical standpoint--it is solely because we have trouble wrapping our minds around that concept.


BTW, you can save the arrogance for somebody else. The first rebuttal I ever wrote was 4 years ago in response to my former pastor and largely dealing with that argument. I wrote about ten pages on it.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"I do agree with the RRS position...I should clarify: I simply do not agree with the adolescent and laughable methods which - you should and most likely do know - are completely and rightfully ignored in academic circles. No self-respecting scientist (who at best can provide explanations and descriptions) would ever pretend to the position of prescriptive moral arguments (I suppose you've solved Hume's is-ought problem as well?)."

Kelly says...

We don't need to convince those in academia--they already know. We are aiming for a different target. The fact that we are the number one atheist website in the world seems to indicate that we've hit it.
Also, point me to one instance of me personally employing the naturalistic fallacy or using a prescriptive moral argument.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"If you and your ilk can maturely and intrepidly accept a mutually beneficial, constructive, and - yes, even necessary - discourse, I invite you cordially to attend several online discussions on the existence of God, the role of religion, and the issue of Islam. Be warned: we are not simple Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort types."

Kelly says...

I have no time, nor the desire, to do so. You have not fooled me into believing that you are an atheist, or even close to one, so your attempt at subterfuge has failed.


Just FYI--I find Islam to be a disgusting barbaric religion that is ATM an even bigger threat than christianity.

Josh Ryan Dellinger wrote:
"If you accept our challenge (re: if your positions are developed, defensible, and justified) then I expect your rational (toss in mature as well) response. If not, then I am sorry to say I am not the least bit surprised. Dawkins et al have misrepresented doxastic beliefs concerning religion as merely the outmoded and irrational trademark of the uncritical and credulous masses. Pity that intellectualism (I am being quite generous with the term) of today has become alienated from its better half - integrity."

Kelly says...

I am not a participant in your pedantic nonsense peppered with rhetoric, therefore I will neither be participating or forfeiting. You can take your proposition, complete with its condescending and self-aggrandizing nonsense to somebody else. Perhaps they have nothing better to do.

Kelly

NOTICE: This communication may not be reprinted unless in its entirety.
Creative Commons License Non-Commercial Non-derivative Attribution

 

HERE'S MY BRIEF RESPONSE...

Through the last two years I have grown numb to theistic argument with people who I know to be dishonest and seem to embrace the character of the conman. I will take public debates from conmen, like Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron because they are very visible. The name Joshua Ryan Dellinger doesn't come to mind when I think of conmen worthy of wasting time on. At this point, our radio show has not held a recorded interview since September of '07. None have been recorded with atheists or theists, and this is due to a sound problem we can't seem to resolve.

We've been too busy on other areas of importance to even focus on it, so put that in your pipe and smoke it a bit when you go slander our name and tell others we refused to debate you. As for this refusal... to be honest, if we had recording capability we may have accepted, Kelly loves ripping the heads off of people like you... me personally I'm tired of your ilk. The dishonesty, arrogance, and ignorance seethes off of your post. The holier than thou attitude, the whining about the rules you think we break on our forum as you systematically break almost all of them. (sock-puppet on an anonymous name, not debating the points merely launcing an attack to debate points, trolling, bullying (blackmailer!), and the slander/libel is bound to come if you haven't already crossed that line. I'd rather know nothing about you until we get on the phone, and find out who you are in real time... if I knew ahead of time (and in this case, I do) I would want to cancel you in my area and anywhere in my vicinity.

At this point for me personally, I am interested in talking to theists I know nothing about, or at least don't dislike yet. (I know too much about you already, that I already want to spit on your face, and I don't like that feeling, nor do I seek to purposefully subject myself to it). Or I like speaking to people who seem to have a modicum of personal honesty, the type of person that can say "hey, you're right about that."

Those theists are hard to come by, but the conversations are more enjoyable, I don't feel like smashing my face into a brick when they're over, and there's a chance I might actually smile. When the show is back to recording interviews, I will continue to seek those people out. Don't worry though, don't burn your bridge, and count yourself out... Rook and Kelly love picking on know it alls who don't know it all. You have a chance with them, calling me out (on your crimes) will only make me give them a weird look when they ask me to book you. The blackmail/ultimatum will only make Rook and Kelly want to smash your face with a brick, so flip the attitude, and maybe you'll have a chance, twerp.

 

 

 

HERE ARE THE COMMENTS JOSHUA RYAN DELLINGER MADE IN OTHER THREADS NOT PERTAINING TO THIS.

THIS IS NOW THE THREAD THAT JOSHUA RYAN DELLINGER CAN COMMENT IN WITHOUT REGISTERING FOR AN ACCOUNT. THEY REMAIN UNCHALLENGED FOR OUR MEMBERS TO LAUGH AT (or respond to) IN ALL THEIR GLORY. I've put my thoughts [in red].

 

This comment left in a thread about our appearance on Tombcast Podcast:

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

Brian,

I understand that you do not debate within e-mail correspondence. I also understand that
1. Slander/Libel [You bordered on this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
2. Clear intent to not argue a position, but to merely attack a person [You bordered on this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
3. Trolling [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
4. Abuse [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]
5. Bullying [You did this- yet your post is on display and you're allowed to post again]

[you also posted twice under two different names:sockpuppet against rules]
are categorically disallowed. I am attempting to inquire, then, in exactly what form you will allow an official debate between you, other colleagues of your choosing, myself, and one friend. I have written many times to no avail, and am beginning to wonder if the RRS is actually capable of responding to those who have more to do than merely stroke your egos. This is no vicious attack - this is a serious challenge.

Sincerely (again),

Joshua Ryan Dellinger

P.S. Additionally, let me add that I believe the RRS to be guilty of every last practice they forbid. Such tyranny should not be. PLEASE NOTE that I am not baiting you - I am simply supplying criticism (mild at that) and one again inviting you, as a worthy opponent, to a more challenging debate. I am no teenager nor philosophical freshman.[You're only four years older than a philosophical freshman fwiw, but that has absolutely nothing to do with why you've turned us off so much, you do act like a child. But so do many Pastors.] Please accept and retain your honor. [Dipshit, a debate with you is not what retains our honor, now how bout proving you're worth any honor at all, and start posting in our atheist vs theist section, within the rules?

Let's assume for a minute that we do break all of the above rules. You realize that there are dozens of others who also break all of those rules? That to be hypocrites we'd have to ban the others but leave ourselves? Since Kelly, Rook, Hamby, and I have taken more control over who gets banned only one person has been banned. One person, spamming off topic views named Euthymius was recently banned, and that's the only one I know of in a month or so. He was previously banned under a different name, a major no-no.

 

This comment left in a thread about my suit with Uri Geller:

 

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Submitted by Is This One Free? (not verified) on February 17, 2008 - 6:59pm.

Dear "Sapient"

Arrogant? Most assuredly. "Wise"? Perhaps "sophomoric" is more apt. But lest I dip into the "anals" (your word for annals, I believe? Please don't try to pass it off as a witty intention) of all ad hominems, and thus reduce myself to the RRS level, I would like to formally apprise you of both my identity and my offer.

I have written several times to both you and Kelly. Each time I have congenially extended a challenge to you and her. This would consist in a mannerly and mature debate on the existence of God[start acting mature, and then I might believe that] (proofs for the necessary existence of a creator being), the role of religion in society today, and other topics which we may or may not address given your consent and preferences.

I am well aware of the practices and methodologies of the RRS. [But not well aware enough to know that we haven't recorded a show for 5 months, and mention it in almost every webcam appearance we make. You also aren't familiar enough to know that the proper way to attain this debate would be to take it to our community and provide such good argumentation that our community would force us to have you on our show or face their own wrath/suspicions.] They include not only genetic fallacies, misattribution of causality, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, ad hominems, ad populums, appeals to authority (and even a few argumentum ad baculi), and a dozen other faulty and ignoble acts. [for the record... comedy isn't a logical fallacy. Jon Stewart is not ad hom-ing Bush. Our ridicule and humor at your imaginary friend's expense doesn't = fallacy] I agree with your critics who claim that you are "philosophical dilettantes". I have witnessed nothing worth commendation nor even toleration[Mindcore: your turn] , yet I have tallied a grand litany of offenses.

You should know that I am not a religious person[right, you're a "Christian" we've heard that one before]. I agree that religion is, overall, deleterious in effect. However, I am most certainly a principles debater who will not stoop to the contemptible methods that you and your associates seem to espouse. Therefore recognize, if you will, that I am not merely some "religious quack"[you're right, I'd say you're about par for the course. Falwell and Phelps, those are quacks. You're more of the typical "I know I'm right, and everyone else is being rude and using logical fallacies" type.] seeking your destruction, but rather a concerned logician who is appalled by the rank poorness of your arguments. [a logician who claims to be well aware of how we work yet hasn't the slightest clue that we aren't recording shows right now and haven't for 5 months.... some logician]

You, Dawkins, et al have made theistic beliefs the province of fools, backwards bumpkins, and the undereducated. This shameful misrepresentation is a foul vice on your part, and worthy of nothing but execration. Should you accept an actual challenge - that is - a debate with others who are not only your equals [there isn't a theist in the world that enters the scale of equal to us in the logic category, sorry]but quite possibly your logical superiors, perhaps you may earn something of a position of respect. As of yet, you have only earned laughable scorn.

I do, therefore, officially invite you (once again) to a constructive debate to be held between your crowd (specifically, you and whomever you choose) and my own. I think you'll find that we are not easy victories such as Ray Comfort and a handful of laypersons. We are, rather, philosophy students of diligent study, and just the sort to dispatch your pitifully irrational positions. [You're invited to have that debate on our Atheist Vs. Theist forum, but I won't be holding your hand like I am now.]

You should know that RRS is not the venerable social liberator you may hold it to be, but is rather scoffed at and derided (and the butt of several jokes within intellectual circles) by those actually disciplined in logic and argumentation.[Let's hear who they are and what their arguments are, ad hom, I mean Joshua Ryan Dillinger] You are not philosophers, mind you, nor admirable positivists. You are sophists, pseudo-intellectual bullies, and self-glorifying, swaggering blowhards.

Please do accept the challenge. I am documenting every last letter I send (one daily until you either formally decline for legitimate reasons - i.e., you're scared - or until we have secured an agreement) and will continue to post public exposes of your lack of fortitude. I consider your lack of response (and complete lack of rationality) to be one of the more blatant though still mildly entertaining ironies your organization has provided me.[emphasis on blackmail paragraph is mine]

Sincerely,

Joshua Ryan Dellinger

P.S. If you do in fact wish to condemn amenable adolescents' souls to immortal hellfire or, alternatively, instantly liberate their consciousnesses for the rest of their physical persistence, you might first do a little research into exactly what "blasphemy" consists of. Here, I'll spare you the effort:[Thanks Pastor]

Jesus mentions a sin that is unforgivable in Matt. 12:31-32 and calls it blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. But what exactly is this unforgivable sin? For that, we need to look at the context.

Matt. 12:22-32 says, "Then there was brought to Him a demon-possessed man who was blind and dumb, and He healed him, so that the dumb man spoke and saw. 23And all the multitudes were amazed, and began to say, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?" 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebub the ruler of the demons." 25And knowing their thoughts He said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself shall not stand. 26"And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? 27"And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Consequently they shall be your judges. 28"But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29"Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30"He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters. 31"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. 32"And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come," (All Scripture quotes are from the NASB).

Let me review this section briefly. In verse 22, Jesus healed a blind and dumb man. The Pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the power of "Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons" (v. 24). Jesus responds by saying that a kingdom divided will fall (vv. 25-28) and how the devil must first be bound before you can plunder his house (v. 29). In verses 31-32, He states that blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come.
By simply looking at the context it becomes apparent that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is saying that Jesus did His miracles by the power of the devil. This is unforgivable. But why? We can find a clue by looking at when Jesus began His ministry.


Jesus stated that His baptism was to "fulfill all righteousness," (Matt. 3:15). The word "fulfill" should cause us to think of the Old Testament. Basically, Jesus was baptized because He had to fulfill the Old Testament requirements for entering into the priesthood. He was a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Heb. 5:8-10; 6:20). Priests offered sacrifice to God on behalf of the people. Jesus became a sacrifice for our sin (1 Pet. 2:21; 2 Cor. 5:21) in His role as priest. According to the Old Testament, in order for a priest to be consecrated as a priest, He had to be washed with water (Lev. 8:6; Exodus 29:4, Matt. 3:15) and anointed with oil (Lev. 8:12; Exodus 29:7; Matt. 3:16). Both of these were bestowed upon Jesus at His baptism. Additionally, He may have needed to be 30 years old - (Num. 4:3).


The oil is representative of the Holy Spirit who descended upon Jesus at His baptism (Matt. 3:16). It was after His baptism that He began His ministry and started performing miracles. He did His miracles by the power of the Holy Spirit who had come upon Him at His baptism. The Pharisees - who knew that Jesus' miracles validated His words and ministry (see John 11:45-48) - were attempting to discredit Jesus' Messiahship by saying that His works were by the devil and not by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan, they were blaspheming the Holy Spirit by whom Jesus performed His miracles. This is unforgivable because it struck at the very heart of the redemptive work of God in Christ. It struck at the very nature of Jesus’ ministry of redemption, testimony, and teaching. Jesus was ministering in the power of the Holy Spirit Himself, fulfilling the divine plan of God to provide a sacrifice for our sins (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10). The Pharisees were attributing this to demonic activity. This is a great blasphemy.

As for your very typical Christian attack on the Blasphemy Challenge... how ironic considering you did one of those typical dishonest Christian tactics of pretending to be on our side. As if we're fucking morons and are going to change everything about who we are because some Christian infiltrates, tells us to be nice to Christians, and pretends to be on our side the whole time. We're not idiots Joshua, find an idiot to debate, seems more your size.

Here was your quote ""I do agree with the RRS position...I should clarify: I simply do not agree with the adolescent and laughable methods which - you should and most likely do know - are completely and rightfully ignored in academic circles."

Agree with the RRS position, yet have picked apart the bible exactly as a Pastor would? Interesting.

Here is a response video on that issue for you to pray on, I mean think on... I mean prey on.

 


Joshua Ryan Dellinger (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
"How silly? PLEASE outline

"How silly? PLEASE outline the differences (for they must be vast to warrant a "silly" comment) between "effectively" non-existent and non-existent for us. I believe you'll end up back at "if it can't be measured, it doesn't mean it's not there." That brings you to the agnostic atheist position. I don't know, but I don't have enough evidence to believe. Evidence like "effective" existence"

--Okay.  Well let's take a look at the language here.  You yourself admit there are differences between non-existent and "effectively" non-existent, although you do equate them (I'll show how this isn't necessarily an admission of identity).  First, why supply the modifier "effectively" if in fact the "effectively" non-existent is simply the non-existent?  Maybe this point is too subtle, so let's just progress to the main point:

"Effectively" non-existent means of course that, so far as we know as concerns empirical observation, all sensibility, and any sort of causal efficacy, the entity in question does not exist.  This is hasty, and completely immodest.  I may say: "Well, in my life, honest politicians are 'effectively' non-existent - as I have never witnessed any effect of them".  Or any other sort of example, of course, if that one rankles you.  Now to say something is "effectively" non-existent already admits the criterion: that of causal efficacy or evidence.  It is to say: if it doesn't have any effects, it may as well not exist.  This is at most a statement of principle.  To make the second claim, that something does in fact fail to be in existence, is to go much, much further than you are allowed.  In order to make this bold claim, you would first have to disprove the existence of the object in question.  Given that we are speaking of the supernatural, there is of course no way (short of miracles) to observe any effects (especially for matters of deism or pantheism or panentheism).  Now, does this mean with 100% certainty that we are absolutely sure nothing supernatural exists?  Well, no, clearly not.  It means at most that we have currently held no contact with anything of supernatural cause...something that violates the laws of physics, I mean.  If you should like to say that if the proverbial hand of god came down from the proverbial heavens right now and smacked you, then disappeared, that this was a "natural" event, I would indeed question your terms, as I question Kant's and Hume's before him.  It seems to me that although this event would have manifested within the natural world, it would surely not be explicable within it.  But that is another issue, and we needn't address it. 

This matter of making existential negations, then, is quite problematic even from the point of logic.  In logic, there is the very well-received principle that you cannot prove universal negations.  Given the limits of our observation in both spatial and temporal locales, it is only a principle of logic to note that the phrase "there exist no X such that every X is an object with Y and Z properties" can have no fixed truth value.  Now you may freely state that there has been no "effective" supernatural event in your lifetime, or the lifetime of any humans.  But perhaps many more things of very natural quality have likewise not been observed.  Surely you wouldn't say "there are no aliens" or "there are no flying humans in the entire universe".  Maybe you will say those things, and maybe our conversation will again fail to progress.  I think it only a matter of logic versus illogic at this point, with your side unfortunately carrying the vice.

 

"Beauty is a concept. I'm willing to concede that God is a concept that effects the causal chain, sure. Leprechans, Zeus, Mars, Amon Ra, and Marduk would, in other times, apply equally to your argument, though. The only difference is that in this period in history, the concept of God is more prevelant than Zeus et al. The word "beauty" also really describes a human behaviour indirectly, that being the judgement of what is and is not beautiful. So we're still in the realm of the natural with beauty, whereas the concept of God is fed strictly by religious text."

--Thank you for that, again.  I do cherish your rudimentary expositions.  Two parts, then:

1)  Beauty qua concept.  Are concepts then immaterial or material?  If they are immaterial and they affect behavior, then you are positing something entirely different than physicalism.  I'm sure you see why.  So either concepts are physical and determinism is saved or concepts are not physical and we have some really spooky dualism on our hands.  Or you can be an epiphenomenalist and say that beauty somehow ratchets up out of very physical things, but that of course again doesn't really get rid of the emergence of the immaterial from the  material, does it?

2)  Beauty qua behavior.  Alright, well, ignoring the fact that you've now labeled beauty as both concept and behavior, the two being possibly compatible (the concept of behavior, I suppose?), let's examine this one.  How exactly are we within the realm of the "natural" if in naturalist sciences (physics, chemistry, etc.) we cannot have anything nonphysical affecting the physical?  Is judgment a physical or nonphysical event?  If it is the former then okay, you can go stand next to Kelly.  If it is the latter, then I think you should analyze your concepts more thoroughly. 

This matter of behaviorism, them.  I'm more familiar with Quine lately than Skinner, given my conversion, but certainly you're aware of the extinction of most behaviorism in favor of cognitive science.  The reasons for its demise are the problems that have cropped up within this discussion here.  Treating "behavior" as a substantive, observable principle doesn't get you very far, for you still have to explain 1) how the behavior occurs and 2) what purpose it serves, if any.

I'm sure you've also noticed that teleology has been reintroduced lately by this whole genetic argument.  Well, at least human life has a purpose again (contrary to the principles of science, mind you) -- albeit a very austere and pathetic one.




P.S.  By the way: recently I noticed in my bathroom reading drawer an old magazine with some good points in it.  If we want to speak strictly of genetics - all things genetic being of course good - then I think we should include Hamer's book The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired Into Our Genes.  It seems if it's genetic and we're exalting genetics here, then we can't really be so very upset about this matter, can we?  I suppose some invasive eugenics are in order if we want to truly eliminate this matter of theism.  Any responses from the overlords?


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
Dear Joshua: Many of us

Dear Joshua:

 

 

Many of us here are academics. Many of us are students, and a fair number of us have Masters and PhDs. While I have neither I feel qualified to say as a very promising student of biological anthropology, that you're just wrong when you say that Dennet and Dawkins aren't taken seriously. I have to agree with Kelly, however, that debate is not necessarily Dawkin's forte. On my point, however, I would advise you not to make assumptions you can't back up.

The teens I've spoken with here seem to have found solace in a community of freethinkers, who are in no way conformist. They seek advice from others who understand them, as most of us here did at their age. I'm not going to tell a kid they're not an atheist if the kid decides he/she "is" an atheist, whether or not I think they might be too young or inexperienced to know for sure. I think the best thing to do in this situation is give encouragement and support, especially if the kid doesn't get those things from their family and/or friends. I also don't assume that people younger than myself have lesser minds. I try to treat them like the equals they are.

How hard is it for people to accept that atheism does not require personal omniscience, or a computer library inside one's head? My answer to the Kalam argument is that it cannot presuppose a supernatural explanation, as you would then have to apply the argument to said supernatural cause. In other words, if God made everything, and nothing can be infinite, then who or what made God? This is one of the first questions most atheists have asked themselves and others since they were able to speak and comprehend language. The real travesty is that most kids  who do ask this question are taught to stop asking it by the time they're in grade school.

 

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

"Information is immaterial, yet it affects the material. This is the entire basis of evolution. Information is transcribed via the material, but the material is merely a representation of the information. In the case of genetics, the information is transcribed into the genotype via DNA, which is expressed as a phenotype. However, although it is the phenotype that is selected, and not the genotype, it is the  genotype that is propagated. That is: it is the information, which is immaterial, that produces the individual, which is the phenotypic expression of the information.. It is the information that drives evolution, through its expression.

So, here we have a case of the immaterial affecting the material. Satisfied?

Probably not, as you most likely don't understand the nuances of information theory vis-a-vis the physical biology of information propagation. If you did, you wouldn't've brought up point 2.

However, as another, plainer example, I'll simply refer you to, well, basically the whole of quantum physics, in which information theory plays a large part. The uncertainty principle will be a good starting point, in case you are actually interested. If you need it explained in monosyllabic words, I'm available."


--Well if you're referring to Heisenburg then I think you've totally missed the mark there.  But we won't touch on that - let's stick to genetics, which is central here.

Uhm... how so? I think you don't understand Heisenburg.

The act of observation affect the physical state of matter. Oberving an electron collapses its quantum waveform. This isn't a physical event. It's an informational event. It's not the physical interaction of observation. It's the act of observation. How is this not the immaterial (observation) affecting the material?

 

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

My point was (and remains) that immaterial cannot causally affect the material, and I don't think you've proven anything to the contrary.  This geneto-homunculus argument will not hold water, especially given two important things:

1)  When you reference "information" in this specific example of genetics, do you really mean immaterial information, or do you mean long strands of adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine?  I'm sure you're well aware that there's nothing so immaterial about proteins, amino acids, etc., and that referencing the "information" contained as a genotype is...well...silly.  Genotypes are very, very material, are they not?  So please do explain here what the "immaterial" you're referring to is, exactly?  Genetic information is clearly not immaterial.  The "information" is strictly a series of very real material things.

And, by the way, you have not succeeded in much, I don't believe.  You have now admitted that the immaterial directs the material.  I suppose you've got all sorts of explanations for that.  An explanation, by the way, is not an example to the contrary.  You may have instantiated a specious case of substance-interactionist dualism at the genetic level, but you have yet to explain it.  If it is truly "immaterial", you see, then for it to direct any "material" would require what exactly?  Well it might require some sort of willing, interpretive force here, yes?  This notion of "information" being replicated and represented by the phenotype is - again - worthless, if in fact you are referring to genetic information which is something like ATCGATGGGCACAGGT.  I don't believe that is very immaterial.

Thanks for the intelligent reply.

What do genotypes do? They are encoded with the information required to express a phenotype. They are the physical representation of that information. They themselves do not express the phenotype. They provide the code to create proteins, for instance. They themselves do not create the proteins. That is left to other mechanisms within the cell. They merely carry the code, the information.

This is like the magnetic polarity dots on a hard drive. A program is stored there, but it can't operate from there. It must first be read into a computer that implements the instruction set targeted by the program. You can't natively run a MIPS program on an X86, for instance. The information is useless without something to interpret that information.

The same is true of genes. They are completely senseless without the machinery of the cell to interpret them. They are encoded physically as seemingly-random sequences of amino acid pairs. For instance, the construction of the cell wall proteins are a function of the endoplasmic reticulum. Without that organelle, the code for constructing those proteins makes no sense.

If that argument is not successful (I doubt it will be-- I'm not good at explaining the subtleties of information theory), here's a more prosaic example, which I'm sure some philosopher has already rebutted.

Language is essentially a tool for the transmission of information. If I were to shout, "Hey! There's a spider on your shoulder!" you might whip around to try to look at your own shoulder, your heartbeat might increase in tempo, and so forth. Here, information has created a physical manifestation in the real world. An observable manifestation. (The example is lame. It's from The Kids In The Hall. Sorry.)

 

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

Nigel The Bold wrote:

"However, to extend this to something outside of objective reality (something "supernatural," say) is not just a leap, it's a misapplication of logic. Then to further suggest that the effects of the beauty judgement are not part of the natural world-- breathtaking. Your poor logic is a thing to behold.

Anyway, here you try to use a subjective reaction (beauty) to an objective reality to "prove" that something (you really aren't quite clear on this point) might exist in the "supernatural" realm that affect the natural realm, yet remains unobservable."

--Did the extension of this particular argument span to anything like a "proof" of god?

Ah! Sorry. My misunderstanding. I guess your words got in the way of my understanding.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

You say the cutest things. So because we cannot naturally observe the supernatural or materially observe the immaterial it is absent altogether? This would be akin to saying that because we cannot logically prove the beauty of a painting the beauty does not exist, or that since we cannot empirically prove a double negation it is not valid. But again, I don't know if this matters, since you're a positivist and not a logical positivist.

You weren't arguing for God. You were merely arguing for the supernatural, by using a non-sequitur. My mistake.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

I think rather the point was that physicalist models are completely inaccurate concerning several events which we can call into consideration at any point during the day.  If you should like to admit that the immaterial quality of "beauty" can physically affect the material object of "body", then I do believe you are already a dualist.  And, again, I'm sure you've solved all the problems with that.  What was that about metaphysics?

Gotcha. You were merely looking for a label so you could process it through the secret philosophy decoder ring. (That was a little low. But it is funny. At least to me. I crack myself up.)

I believe that humans are wired a certain way, and are trained from birth to react to things in certain ways. We call some things "beautiful," and other things "ugly." This is one example among many. In any case, the fact that there is no one standard of beauty proves that the experience of beauty is subjective, as I said before. You could say it's a biochemical reaction to an outside stimulus (though that simplifies it tremendously). But it doesn't matter. It's still information affecting the physical, however subjective the reaction.

So, I'm mostly Humean in my understanding of subjective interpretation of and reaction to reality, and physicalist in my understanding of our observation of objective reality. So yes, I'd agree that the physicalist model is insufficent to describe our subjective experience of reality.

I'm still not sure how this lets in the supernatural, as you suggested in the quote above.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

"No-- because of definitions. Once something occurs within the natural world, no matter the source, it is part of the natural world. Duh."


--Yes, thank you Hume.  I'm well aware of this principle, but I think you've left out something quite crucial here.  First, I was responding to the criterion that the supernatural interact with the natural world.  I never claimed this position, only responded to it.  Secondly, you may do well in explaining all manner of effect in naturalist language, I agree.  I believe Wittgenstein makes this point in his speech on ethics.  Once we've "got" a "miracle", then of course it's not a miracle anymore, as we can test it and this and that quantifiable blah blah blah.  Yes, I do believe I know all that.  But we are not merely speaking of the effects here, are we?  If - mind you, IF - the supernatural were to (and I never claimed it should or does or whatever else) interact with the natural world to cause some series of unnatural event, violating the laws of physical determinism, you could very well explain every last iota of the effects.  You would, however, be entirely wrong in claiming that the "cause" would be part of the natural world.

I don't believe I claimed the cause was part of the natural world. I just said that once 'it' occured within the natural world, it is part of the natural world. I left the antecedent of 'it' unclear. Sorry about that. If the cause is supernatural, but the effect is in the natural world, 'it' refers to the effect, not the cause. But I think you're about to address that point.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

As long as we're being hypothetical here, let's take a stroll through a thought experiment.  If a large number of people were to observe some spontaneous generation of some object X, they would immediately be able to say "well this is part of the natural world".  But would they be able to explain its cause?  You may say "such a thing has never occurred", but I chide you to notice that I am not claiming it has.  But so far as your rationale is concerned, everything about this ex nihilo object should be subject for swift explanation.  How?
 

Very good!

This is exactly the case to which I referred. If we were ever an event within the natural world that was inexplicable with our current understanding of the natural world, we would first investigate our understanding of the natural world. If we could somehow prove that the event was impossible, and our experiments validated that view, then that event would by its existence provide evidence of a "supernatural" world that can somehow affect our natural world.

That's what I was trying (poorly, I guess) to get at. There's never been such an event. So far, we have been able to adequately explain the world around us using strictly naturalistic properties.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

"I'm not sure what this adds to the conversation. I've already addressed the immaterial affect on the material,"

--No, you really, really haven't.  And I will not progress (re: waste any more time and text) towards any further commentary/response until we have sufficiently and comprehensively concluded this point.  According to all physical laws, the immaterial is causally impotent.  Your point about genetics is not really cutting the mustard here.  Now you may try again to explain how exactly genetic codes, which are really only strands of material, are immaterial.  If you want to reference the fact that they are "information", again please note what your signifier points to.  If it's a genetic coding of the aforementioned order, then it's not "immaterial information" such as the types I provided (logic, belief, etc.).  And if in fact there is a case of the "immaterial" affecting the material, I should like to hear how this is possible...especially from a physicist.

I believe I have. I'm sorry you feel it was a waste of time.

I get the feeling like you simply want to argue philosophy. That's too bad. The results of philosophy are only as good as its assumptions, and you (like many philosophers) seem to be about 100 years out of date. Your assumptions are faulty, and you refuse to even bother understanding why. I think you don't even really care-- the philosophical debate is more important than either the relevence or correctness of your assumptions, it seems.

Your ignorance of basic evolution and physics hobbles your ability to understand the flaws in your argument. That is too bad, as your analytic ability is fairly decent.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

P.S.  By the way: recently I noticed in my bathroom reading drawer an old magazine with some good points in it.  If we want to speak strictly of genetics - all things genetic being of course good - then I think we should include Hamer's book The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired Into Our Genes.  It seems if it's genetic and we're exalting genetics here, then we can't really be so very upset about this matter, can we?  I suppose some invasive eugenics are in order if we want to truly eliminate this matter of theism.  Any responses from the overlords?

Joshua,

I have an honest question I'd like answered, if you'd deign.

What practical application does philosophy have?

I know the scientific method is an epistemology, so there's one. I know that the study of logic stemmed from philosophy. But other than that, what practical application does it have?

More specifically, what practical results have been derived from philosophy?

I ask this because, from what I've observed of philosophy, and philosophers, most like to argue, but really don't care much beyond that. There's a lot of discussion, with one person quoting Spinoza, and another Hume, someone else Nietzsche, and yet another Camus. But really, with so many schools of thought, and so much contradiction between them, is there anything practical at all?

It all seems like one big intellectual circle jerk to me. Is there any reason to suppose otherwise?

Not that it needs to be practical. As we discussed aesthetics before, just the shear joy of a well-argued point is as potent as a surprising and strong chess move.

 

[edit]

I'd like to point out that you definitely don't understand the science as well as you think you do. You demonstrate your ignorance in almost every post.

Here is yet another example of your ignorance, though, like your misuse of "penultimate question" (which does not mean "next to last question in the paragraph," but "next to last question," period) and subsequent rationalization, I'm sure you'll find some way to rationalize your mistake.

Genetics and evolution are two distinct studies. Evolution operates on phenotypes, which are the expression of the information encoded in genotypes. Genetics is the study of DNA. The God Gene is a study of evolution's influence on certain individuals ability to feel "transcendent." Unfortunately, the evidence is that VMAT2 accounts for only about 1% variance in a specific psychological analysis. Although statistically significant, it doesn't seem to explain the widespread belief in God.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Hey, at least you argue from

Hey, at least you argue from a position of thoughtfulness. The last post from Marty was "do you consider that statement absolute or relative?" Oh Marty, you're soooo smart.

Anyway ...

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Alright.  Well disbelief is no grounds for the "elimination" of the contrary belief, is it?

Here is exactly what would be relevant to discuss. You later on use the term "anti-theist", which I completely agree is a more accurate label for this group. In my case (for I represent only myself here) I would end up with the title "anti-supernaturalist" which isn't all that catchy, but it defines my position better.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
If you want to say a belief is misguided, you will most likely have to provide evidence that this is the case, which I suppose could only be achieved through .

Ah! You got cut off!

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
But maybe you just wanted to sound like a snarky smartass rather than contribute anything to an already convoluted discourse.

Don't be angry: I wanted into the fray, and figured you'd only answer if I gave you brief statements to dismantle. It was manipulative - I apologize.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
What about belief in the beauty of a certain poem? [is that irrational?]

I think so, yes. But you're asking someone to describe a feeling in that case. No reason nor rationale need be given for attraction or beauty. It would be more accurate to say "I feel that the poem is beautiful." Your use of "believe" there is certainly distinct from reasonable belief in something's existence.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
This is exactly one reason why positivism fails.  It attempts to imperially extend and mandate its territory beyond the scope of what it may actually account for.

I agree.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I think what we have here is a confusion of terms, at bottom..  RRS claims that believes of the just-now-mentioned order are "irrational".  Well, no, they're not...they're unscientific [...] If by "scientific" we mean "is empirically falsifiable", then we cannot speak "scientifically" of many, many aspects of our world that, despite this fact, remain very true and present.

But these things do not take on the domineering aspect of religion. (Well, except economics - it's getting close.) My personal concern is very pragmatic, in that people's beliefs inform their decisions. When individuals believe in a vast array of highly improbable things including armageddon-type scenarios, and then vote, and they happen to be in the country with the most nuclear weapons ... it's my firm belief that a little cold rationality could help the decision process along there. But maybe I'm being optimistic.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Even if we could reason to the necessary existence of god, we could certainly not say that being was any one doctrine's deity.  But all this stupid shit RRS uses towards disproving theism is pointless.

True enough. I come from the position of never really having believed in deities the same way I've never really believed in leprechauns or the tooth fairy, so attempting to disprove, for instance, the tooth fairy, seems an unneccessary exercise. Hopefully that gives you an idea of what I mean when I use the word "belief".

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Disproving creationism only dispatches the lowest rung of arguments against atheism.

I would love to dispatch that rung. Even given your assertion above that science is limited, I would contend that a hypothesis that weak is worth dispatching.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Legally speaking, I don't see how RRS even begins its war against theistic beliefs legitimately.  In point of fact, it can't.

It can if it attacks (through discourse) the beliefs of individuals, and not announce that, as an extreme example, "all theists threaten national security". That would get them into hot water.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Attempting to define the world in positivist framings tends to leave very, very much out [...] Positivism is an unserviceable and untenable position that is ultimately abandoned by those very individuals who hold it as soon as they find a particular poem, novel, or film they enjoy.

Positivism would be limited to the description of a person enjoying a novel and in determining how "enjoyment" manifests itself by neurons firing in the brain. The position that literary criticism is irrational is untenable, certainly. I would still say that the enjoyment of the poem is irrational, but that the irrational nature of enjoyment is not equivalent to "irrational belief".

I'm actually enjoying your new approach to discourse. I think we need to agree on terms before we can figure out where we actually agree or disagree (!)

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:

First off, a person is capable of being an atheist with an intentional object and without.  So we have

1)  X has no belief B about intentional object O
2)  X has no belief B owing to no reference to familiarity with intentional object O

[...]

which yields

(T)&(F)

Of course it does. The statements aren't equivalent. I have a feeling I've miscommunicated, since I didn't mean to imply that the nature of the belief would be the same given familiarity with the intentional object. You're right, I wasn't familiar with intentionality, but it's not really that complicated. 

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I imply merely that either a child is an atheist owing to a lack of intentional object, e.g. the concept of god, or Sapient, Kelly, and you are atheists owing to a lack of belief about an intentional object, e.g. the concept of god.

I'm actually glad you clarified this - that's what I didn't understand at first. I completely agree that these types of belief are distinct and different.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
RRS simply cannot account for "belief" in the way they have defined it [...]  It is my position that all beliefs are about something, and therefore intentional.

So your problem with RRS's definition of belief is that it unites two seperate aspects of the meaning of the word belief?

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Given that "belief" is utilized in such phrases as "being without belief in god is atheism", we can see that "belief" for the RRS is closely related (if not identical to) the notion of "holding affirmation or opinion of" [...]

I understand from that paragraph that you'd like to see the different aspects of belief expressly stated to avoid confusion, and increase the precision of the word when used. Am I wrong in summarizing that way?

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
By the way we all know that Mother Teresa had "doubts" as to whether god existed (doubt is equated with atheism on the RRS page).

To the best of my knowledge, this was a facetious assertion by Christopher Hitchens. But it's Christopher Hitchens. He'd probably never admit he was making a joke. It's part of the man's charm.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I think RRS has misdefined themselves in another way.  You people are not "atheists" alone, but are better understood as "antitheists".

I agreed with you above.

Also, I can't respond for the RRS, really - I hope you don't think that's a dodge, I just don't know them personally.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Now, does this mean with 100% certainty that we are absolutely sure nothing supernatural exists?  Well, no, clearly not.  It means at most that we have currently held no contact with anything of supernatural cause...something that violates the laws of physics, I mean.

This is my position, except that instead of the phrase "of supernatural cause", I would just say "supernatural", since I would wait for something supernatural before I speculated about its cause.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Now you may freely state that there has been no "effective" supernatural event in your lifetime, or the lifetime of any humans.  But perhaps many more things of very natural quality have likewise not been observed.  Surely you wouldn't say "there are no aliens" or "there are no flying humans in the entire universe".

No, I wouldn't say those things, and I agree that it's safe to say that we have no experienced anything supernatural and there are a great number of things yet to experience in the natural.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
1)  Beauty qua concept.  Are concepts then immaterial or material?  If they are immaterial and they affect behavior, then you are positing something entirely different than physicalism.  I'm sure you see why.

I do see why, and having seen evidence of firing synapses, I consider concepts ultimately material.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
2)  Beauty qua behavior. [...]

I was obviously not clear, because this section addresses something I didn't mean to say. When I said "indirectly describes", I meant that "beauty" is the word you use to describe the result of someone deciding that something is beautiful. Decision is an observable behaviour. The wording was probably confusing.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I'm sure you've also noticed that teleology has been reintroduced lately by this whole genetic argument.


Are we talking "The Selfish Gene"-type purpose?

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
If we want to speak strictly of genetics - all things genetic being of course good - then I think we should include Hamer's book The God Gene: How Faith Is Hardwired Into Our Genes.  It seems if it's genetic and we're exalting genetics here, then we can't really be so very upset about this matter, can we?

No more than we could be upset about having an appendix, I guess. Unless it gets infected - that's nasty.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Joshua

HisWillness wrote:

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I think RRS has misdefined themselves in another way.  You people are not "atheists" alone, but are better understood as "antitheists".

I agreed with you above.

Also, I can't respond for the RRS, really - I hope you don't think that's a dodge, I just don't know them personally.

"Antitheist" is not quite right, either, as it indicates a position actively against theists. I agree there may be a bit of confusion concerning the mode of lack of belief, vis-a-vis an intentional object. But, due to the vagaries of the english language, antitheist is completely different from atheist, in either mode.

However, I definitely agree with Joshua that the root of lack of belief is different based on the intentional object, or absence thereof.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Joshua Ryan Dellinger

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
The polysemy and vagueness of the term "belief" is probably what is most problematic here.  If an atheist is truly without belief in god in the same way an infant is, they wouldn't join RRS - they wouldn't know what "atheism" meant and wouldn't feel any resonance with the site/group.

True enough.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
Kelly and Sapient and others maintain they "have no belief".  This is simply not the case.  They have a very certain belief concerning god - that is, that god is not currently known to them, that god is not present in their lives right now, that god cannot be known (they classify themselves as agnostic), etc.  So they are not "without belief" concerning god - they have all sorts of beliefs predicated of the intentional object.

Oh, sure. But again, the meaning of "I don't believe in leprechans or bigfoot" isn't as rigorous as all that, and it also concerns an intentional object. I'm familiar with leprechans, but I don't believe they exist. That's not an expression of exhaustive knowledge, mind you. Leprechans could exist. So I think it's still the word "belief" that is causing you grief.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
I'm glad you've admitted this.  It logically follows that either infants are atheists or adults are atheists.

Certainly. I get it now that you mean changing the meaning of the word belief changes the nature of the label "atheist". Gotcha.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
You admit that a lack of belief is not the same as a belief towards an intentional object.  "Doubting" involves belief towards an intentional object - being a child without any IO does not.  Given that these are different by your own admission, then either an adult with doubt is an atheist, or a child with no IO is an atheist.  Both cannot be instances of a "lack of belief", especially since we have seen that no adult atheist truly "lacks belief" in the sense that they are ignorant of the IO of god.  Rather, they do in fact hold very specific opinions, beliefs, and/or judgments on the IO, proving that they are not atheists owing to a "lack of belief" in the way a child is claimed to be.

Yup. Got it. You've introduced a heavily specific way to define belief.

Joshua Ryan Dellinger wrote:
2) If atheism qua lack of belief doesn't involve an intentional object, then how is this compatible with atheism qua belief understood as involving an intentional object?

I think I didn't follow before because I wasn't following your two "belief" definitions. We've determined that "baby atheism" is, in fact, different than "adult atheism", and belief can have different definitions depending on reference to an intentional object.

[edit]Maybe "uninformed atheism" and "informed atheism" would be more accurate, as surely there is no guarantee that an adult is introduced to an intentional object of deification.

How does one then address faith, which is belief based on the trust of a book or authority to be correct?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

"Antitheist" is not quite right, either, as it indicates a position actively against theists.

I thought it meant a position actively against a god or gods. Is that not how the word would be interpreted?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


FulltimeDefendent
Scientist
FulltimeDefendent's picture
Posts: 455
Joined: 2007-10-02
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

"Antitheist" is not quite right, either, as it indicates a position actively against theists.

I thought it meant a position actively against a god or gods. Is that not how the word would be interpreted?

I actually prefer your term, Anti-Supernaturalist. It's more applicable since Christians seem to think their religion is only important one in our eyes, and so many Christians think Atheism is centered around the rejection of Christianity alone, as opposed to the rejection of Gods and supernatural phenomenon, period. This is pretty arrogant of them, I think.

It's also arrogant that they'll be satisfied with nothing less than us converting to THEIR specific religion. They're not willing to, I don't know, compromise and I'll just  go back to the Jewish faith or something. Not that I would do that, but they'd never consider that maybe even if I did start believing in God, that it wouldn't automatically be the Christian God I chose to worship.

A dumb theist said to me the other day that I had to submit to Jesus. My answer: I don't believe in being submissive, PERIOD, and neither should she, being a black woman. I respect liberation theology more than I respect most theologies. This is probably expressed best by people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi, though Gandhi had some personal issues that aren't much discussed today. But a theology based on submission to a master? That's intolerable in the modern age. I should have told her she sounded like a Muslim, another religion that's all about submission, especially by women.

I don't submit to anyone or anything. I can be persuaded by a rational argument, but to submit to anything goes against everything I stand for. Of course she also tried to convince me that Christianity is the only religion that requires faith. Uhhh... What?

 

“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
Possibly the greatest dammage

It is a shame when one uses the name of Christ in connection with unsavory activities, despite how consistent it is throughout the history of the church. If it is accurate that lies and slander were spread by such a person, then I find it essential to implore that such things not blanket your views of the Christian individual. Even though there are a great deal of disagreements between the differing position it cannot be denied that, to actual Christians, the name "Christ," from which the term is derived, is not something which is to be taken with "a grain of salt," as if something to be thrown about willy nilly. Certainly, the name of our Lord is a name that should haunt us in wrong-doing and compel us to remember the sacrifice that was made that we might be clean. I shall not, though, deign to apologize for the individual's idiocy or malfeasance, but rather that you have spoken with many so-called Christians who give a bad name to the Lamb, of which they are to serve.

It is a sad truth the church has to face that the actions and the teachings of a very vocal portion is dammaging the image of what is ideally a church devoted to serving the world instead of the individual's pockets and, even in disagreement, maintaining the fullest expression of love, gentleness, and respect. Perhaps, though, on each end of the spectrum, we become too focused on the momentary battles and forget about the reason we are fighting the war: to the Christian, our intent is to bring the gospel to those who do not follow, for it is the power of God to bring salvation to the people and to the atheist it may be best stated that the intent is to bring people to a place of "freedom." To avoid any unnecessary arguing of that very last part, I will concede that I am at a loss as to why atheists fight the battle and, if you would like, I could explain why I am convinced of the futility and contradiction in doing so.

All in all, in my long-winded fashion, I just want to express my particular disgust, if it is that there are indeed reasons to be disgusted. Christian or not, one should be able to easily discern that a person who behaves deceptively does not actually mean to follow the One who is the Light in the shadows, for deception is that which is hidden. Know, though, that there are indeed Christian men and women who yearn so eagerly to see all people come to know the Lord Jesus and who will definitely consent to not knowing every single truth of the universe.

Peace and love in His,

Phillip Nicewaner

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
FulltimeDefendent wrote:

FulltimeDefendent wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:

"Antitheist" is not quite right, either, as it indicates a position actively against theists.

I thought it meant a position actively against a god or gods. Is that not how the word would be interpreted?

I actually prefer your term, Anti-Supernaturalist. It's more applicable since Christians seem to think their religion is only important one in our eyes, and so many Christians think Atheism is centered around the rejection of Christianity alone, as opposed to the rejection of Gods and supernatural phenomenon, period. This is pretty arrogant of them, I think.

It's also arrogant that they'll be satisfied with nothing less than us converting to THEIR specific religion. They're not willing to, I don't know, compromise and I'll just  go back to the Jewish faith or something. Not that I would do that, but they'd never consider that maybe even if I did start believing in God, that it wouldn't automatically be the Christian God I chose to worship.

A dumb theist said to me the other day that I had to submit to Jesus. My answer: I don't believe in being submissive, PERIOD, and neither should she, being a black woman. I respect liberation theology more than I respect most theologies. This is probably expressed best by people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi, though Gandhi had some personal issues that aren't much discussed today. But a theology based on submission to a master? That's intolerable in the modern age. I should have told her she sounded like a Muslim, another religion that's all about submission, especially by women.

I don't submit to anyone or anything. I can be persuaded by a rational argument, but to submit to anything goes against everything I stand for. Of course she also tried to convince me that Christianity is the only religion that requires faith. Uhhh... What?

 

I am not overly familiar with Christians who think that atheists are merely interested in the denial of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but rather that it is not really essential to consider other gods and the rejection of them. Perhaps it is indeed mere arrogance, if anything, arrogance founded in revelation, although I find that the word "revelation" tends to hold little value to those who do not understand.

Is it really a surprise that Christians are not content until the person comes to accept Christ? Yes, through prayer and evangelism the church earnestly seeks the joy in acknowledgment of the whole world to the Creator who fashioned them. Though there are many faiths throughout the world that have minor witnessing to their beliefs, Christianity is a faith solely devoted to the worship of God and evangelism, which is another form of that very worship; this isn't arrogance, though, instead we were commanded to go in all the world and "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey" what He has commanded (Matthew 28:19-20). Truth is uncompromising and in God there is no falsehood, so it follows that disbelieving or rejecting God via atheism or agnosticism is the same as following another faith outside of Christianity, for you would be serving an impotent god.

I like the issue of submission, because I dwell on a philosophical notion that haunts me, which is "can anyone truly experience perfect freedom?" Indeed it would seem that such things are impossible and we do, in fact, submit to governing principles and authorities all of the time, such as:

-Submission to physical decadence

-Submission to the current government of the land, which has taken the people's power (I just got done reading Civil Disobedience by Thoreau and feeling a bit "against the man" )

In the issue of choices and what is derived from such things, we see that in all choices, freedom from one means bondage to another and in the Christian perspective, it is no different, for freedom from sin means bondage to God and vice versa. The notion just described can be applied to all things, as far as I can see it, like love, hunger, educational pursuits...though it is just a developing thought, it seems very accurate to human ways and life itself. Humanity does not know and cannot know perfect freedom, for there are great contingents regarding outcomes in life's choices, yet we see that God is the one perfectly free being who makes all things work to His will. I like how you included MLK Jr. and Gandhi, for they were both influenced by Thoreau, whose work was deeply influenced by Christian thought on freedom, accountability of the authority, and the ethical problem of submitting to an authority who forces you to go against the natural God-given rights of mankind. Fantastically so, Christian theology is itself a "liberation theology," for Christianity indeed fights for the rights of human life. Modern age or not, though, each one of us submits to one thing or another, however, we take heed of the words of the teacher who tells us (Ecc. 1:2),

"Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless!"

Yet, as he concludes, "Fear God and keep his commandments for this is the whole duty of man" (Ecc. 12:13), that there is no true meaningful thing if it is not done with the Lord. We submit to Christ because all else leads to what Nietzsche ascribed to life, which is the pangs of the sickness of life (Twilight of the Idols, Ch. 1) that can only be cured by indulging in physical inebriants. Did you ever hear the old limerick that is spread among teens?

"Life is hard and then you die. Screw the world, let's get high!"

That submission to anything but God leads to discontentment in the greatest sense of the term; this is what many Christians seek to install, but can hardly find the most appropriate words.

Agreed, though, Christianity is not the only belief system that requires faith...that is a little goofy. I will also agreed that that style of submission would go against what you stand for, for that is the way with man's inherent nature, standing against that which serves to take away from temporal fun...being an ex-druggie of seven years, who was employed at an adult membership club, I know the feeling of that fun in spades.

Peace and love in His,

Phillip Nicewaner

 

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
phillipnicew wrote:Know,

phillipnicew wrote:
Know, though, that there are indeed Christian men and women who yearn so eagerly to see all people come to know the Lord Jesus and who will definitely consent to not knowing every single truth of the universe.

Yeah, I definitely got that impression. Willful ignorance and yearning for oblivion is pretty common among end-of-days types.

By the way, what's with the "what ho!" tone to your post? Are you trapped in an English romance novel?

Cheerio!

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
phillipnicew wrote:I like

phillipnicew wrote:
I like the issue of submission, because I dwell on a philosophical notion that haunts me, which is "can anyone truly experience perfect freedom?"

You haven't lived until you read this out like Vincent Price. Seriously. If you're playing the "Dude, Where's My Mind?" drinking game, drink now.

phillipnicew wrote:
That submission to anything but God leads to discontentment in the greatest sense of the term; this is what many Christians seek to install, but can hardly find the most appropriate words.

Someone find some theme music for Phil. I need more strings.

phillipnicew wrote:
Agreed, though, Christianity is not the only belief system that requires faith...that is a little goofy.

That's for sure.

phillipnicew wrote:
I will also agreed that that style of submission would go against what you stand for, for that is the way with man's inherent nature, standing against that which serves to take away from temporal fun...being an ex-druggie of seven years, who was employed at an adult membership club, I know the feeling of that fun in spades.

Yeah, I'm not good with submission. But gee whizbang, you sure are! 

phillipnicew wrote:
Peace and love in His

His what? Don't leave me hanging, Phil!

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
phillipnicew wrote:being an

phillipnicew wrote:

being an ex-druggie of seven years, who was employed at an adult membership club, I know the feeling of that fun in spades.

I know I gave you a hard time, but this is the most truthful thing you've written thus far. You'll find that this group is very tolerant as long as you're honest (even if you believe in the supernatural).

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

phillipnicew wrote:
Know, though, that there are indeed Christian men and women who yearn so eagerly to see all people come to know the Lord Jesus and who will definitely consent to not knowing every single truth of the universe.

Yeah, I definitely got that impression. Willful ignorance and yearning for oblivion is pretty common among end-of-days types.

By the way, what's with the "what ho!" tone to your post? Are you trapped in an English romance novel?

Cheerio!

Haha! Believe it or not, that is truly how I communicate. Perhaps it is that English is my minor focus of studies in school (Philosophy and Religious studies being my major).

Now, for the meat of this post, your conclusion of "oblivion" being that which is yearned for is exactly that which is disputed and argued hotly between theists and atheists. In the "hope" aspect, are we to find joy in a Nietzschean end, wherein we joyously smile and embrace the nothingness which finds us via the great conqueror of life or shall we find greater joy in a hope beyond such sickly existence, through one who has become the hope of salvation? Granted, the "hope" aspect is not always enough to form a solid foundation of faith, no, indeed the hope aspect is just a start, but in the Nietzschean way man embraces the concept of death approaching swiftly and tries to ease the pain through drugs, alcohol, sex and whatever else might ease the pain of life, all the while becoming more and more acquainted with feelings of hopelessness (this is a thought formed from a combination of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Twilight of the Idols).

It would seem more neutral to ask questions like:

-Why do they deny pleasures in this life?

-What drives them to believe that God is real?

When one assumes that all there is is oblivion, then the ability to maintain the discussion in a neutral and objective manner wanes - to oblivion. Now, that is not to say that all people who believe came to Christ in a manner that was objective, for many did come to believe through the "hope" factor, even more through the "guilt" factor. I, personally, came to Christ while employed at the adult membership club...actually, one night when I was working in September of 2005, it was just after scouring the private booths and theater that my heart was given to Him. Through a combination of questions - "Why do Christians experience so much joy in life?" - and the "hope" factor, beyond that, to echo slightly what the teacher wrote in Ecclesiastes, I found that the mindless pursuit of the orgasm was itself meaningless and utilitarian - sans hope.

Ignorance isn't completely horrible seeing that each person within the scope of humanity experiences some form or level of ignorance, for we cannot know every detail of the universe itself. Regarding God's existence, we see two things at work: revelation and faith. Through revelation, what is unknown is made know, such as the potential for life after death. Through faith, all tiers of the intellectual community, of which we are all participants, whether joyously or begrudgingly, are gifted to possess the knowledge of God (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Aquinas). Were it so that faith was not available, then such knowledge would be at the hands of the select few who dedicate themselves to the pursuit of diligent inquiry and, even then, because of man's innate tendency for fallacy, that acquired knowledge would suffer.

Eh....I know, I am long-winded. What does it say when a person is able to compose a page worth of writing in response to one or two sentences?

Peace and love in His,

Phillip Nicewaner

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

phillipnicew wrote:
I like the issue of submission, because I dwell on a philosophical notion that haunts me, which is "can anyone truly experience perfect freedom?"

You haven't lived until you read this out like Vincent Price. Seriously. If you're playing the "Dude, Where's My Mind?" drinking game, drink now.

phillipnicew wrote:
That submission to anything but God leads to discontentment in the greatest sense of the term; this is what many Christians seek to install, but can hardly find the most appropriate words.

Someone find some theme music for Phil. I need more strings.

phillipnicew wrote:
Agreed, though, Christianity is not the only belief system that requires faith...that is a little goofy.

That's for sure.

phillipnicew wrote:
I will also agreed that that style of submission would go against what you stand for, for that is the way with man's inherent nature, standing against that which serves to take away from temporal fun...being an ex-druggie of seven years, who was employed at an adult membership club, I know the feeling of that fun in spades.

Yeah, I'm not good with submission. But gee whizbang, you sure are! 

phillipnicew wrote:
Peace and love in His

His what? Don't leave me hanging, Phil!

Believe it or not, I have never touched anything by Vincent Price. I do find that many of the thoughts I dwell on have already been dwelt upon by many who have come before. Perhaps it is truth enough to say that great minds do indeed think alike. Surely, though, it is not appropriate to instantly assume that my mental faculties are malfunctioning.

Truthfully, though, each person is much better at submitting than they might think, for they do it every day.

Peace and love in His (love),

Phillip Nicewaner

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

phillipnicew wrote:

being an ex-druggie of seven years, who was employed at an adult membership club, I know the feeling of that fun in spades.

I know I gave you a hard time, but this is the most truthful thing you've written thus far. You'll find that this group is very tolerant as long as you're honest (even if you believe in the supernatural).

Well, it is certainly the most revealing thus far, but I have not withheld any amount of truth from you. Everything that I wrote was within the spirit of honesty and truthfulness. I am used to the "hard time" in these discussions, but I will always remain as objectively biased (haha) and calculating as possible.

Peace and love in His,

Phillip

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Phil wrote:Now, for the meat

Phil wrote:
Now, for the meat of this post, your conclusion of "oblivion" being that which is yearned for is exactly that which is disputed and argued hotly between theists and atheists. In the "hope" aspect, are we to find joy in a Nietzschean end, wherein we joyously smile and embrace the nothingness which finds us via the great conqueror of life or shall we find greater joy in a hope beyond such sickly existence, through one who has become the hope of salvation?

You can hope for whatever you want as long as you don't pretend it's true. Because then you're in the realm of "lying".

Phil wrote:
Granted, the "hope" aspect is not always enough to form a solid foundation of faith, no, indeed the hope aspect is just a start, but in the Nietzschean way man embraces the concept of death approaching swiftly and tries to ease the pain through drugs, alcohol, sex and whatever else might ease the pain of life, all the while becoming more and more acquainted with feelings of hopelessness (this is a thought formed from a combination of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Twilight of the Idols).

Probably not a great idea to take the ideas of Nietzsche as a personal philosophy anyway. He was pretty much nuts. I mean, the man makes for an entertaining read - don't get me wrong. Some brilliant ideas. But as a personal philosophy, unless your existence is pleased with a tortured quest for the world's most awesome philisophical one-liners, it's probably not well advised.

Phil wrote:
Why do they deny pleasures in this life?

Sorry, who are we talking? Is this Christians?

Phil wrote:
What drives them to believe that God is real?

I'm going to say "tradition". Final answer.

Phil wrote:
When one assumes that all there is is oblivion, then the ability to maintain the discussion in a neutral and objective manner wanes - to oblivion.

Kind of, I guess. I mean if I say "when I die, I'll be dead" and leave it at that, it seems kind of obvious to me. The more elaborate and less founded situation of my non-existent soul coming out and floating to a place that's also non-existent so that it can either be punished or rewarded for ... it's so exhausting. I'd rather just have the peace and quiet.

Phil wrote:
I, personally, came to Christ while employed at the adult membership club...actually, one night when I was working in September of 2005, it was just after scouring the private booths and theater that my heart was given to Him. Through a combination of questions - "Why do Christians experience so much joy in life?" - and the "hope" factor, beyond that, to echo slightly what the teacher wrote in Ecclesiastes, I found that the mindless pursuit of the orgasm was itself meaningless and utilitarian - sans hope.

Dude, I wouldn't be surprised. That's the kind of environment where your mind can just snap in all sorts of places. I actually won't try to tell you there isn't a higher power, especially if you're in NA. There's no way I'm messing with whatever keeps you on the straight and narrow. It's still way better being sober, if you'll allow me to encourage you (without pity or condescension, sincerely).

Phil wrote:
Ignorance isn't completely horrible seeing that each person within the scope of humanity experiences some form or level of ignorance, for we cannot know every detail of the universe itself.

Certainly we have ignorance. It's a fact of life. Selective ignorance is a more heinous offense. Pretending to know something you cannot know goes beyond ignorance into lying.

Phil wrote:
Regarding God's existence, we see two things at work: revelation and faith. Through revelation, what is unknown is made know, such as the potential for life after death.

I'll concede the possibility of life after death, but "possibility" is not knowledge. It's possible that unicorns exist, and we just haven't found one yet. That doesn't mean we know there are unicorns.

Phil wrote:
Through faith, all tiers of the intellectual community, of which we are all participants, whether joyously or begrudgingly, are gifted to possess the knowledge of God (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book I, Aquinas).

Whoa there. I know about the Judeo-Christian God because of books. I didn't have to have faith to know about God, who to me is a cultural artifact. Much like Zeus, Apollo, Odin, Marduk or Amon-Ra might be to you.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
phillipnicew

phillipnicew wrote:

Truthfully, though, each person is much better at submitting than they might think, for they do it every day.

I don't think submitting to the need to eat or go to the bathroom really counts, but if that's what you're driving at, sure. Or tapping out when someone gets a good arm-bar on. I'll give you that. But my whole person? Oh wait - paying taxes and obeying the law. I do that, too. I guess that's a form of submission. Do those count, or were you talking full mental submission? Because I don't tend to do that.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
phillipnicew wrote:I do find

phillipnicew wrote:

I do find that many of the thoughts I dwell on have already been dwelt upon by many who have come before. Perhaps it is truth enough to say that great minds do indeed think alike.

Yes. But fools seldom differ.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
This is life

phillipnicew wrote:

Now, for the meat of this post, your conclusion of "oblivion" being that which is yearned for is exactly that which is disputed and argued hotly between theists and atheists. In the "hope" aspect, are we to find joy in a Nietzschean end, wherein we joyously smile and embrace the nothingness which finds us via the great conqueror of life or shall we find greater joy in a hope beyond such sickly existence, through one who has become the hope of salvation? Granted, the "hope" aspect is not always enough to form a solid foundation of faith, no, indeed the hope aspect is just a start, but in the Nietzschean way man embraces the concept of death approaching swiftly and tries to ease the pain through drugs, alcohol, sex and whatever else might ease the pain of life, all the while becoming more and more acquainted with feelings of hopelessness (this is a thought formed from a combination of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Twilight of the Idols).

"Sickly existence?" You beg the question, Sir. Existence is hardly sickly, nor is it destitute, devoid, devolved, or despairing. Existence is joyous, should you but endeavour to make it so. Existence is enriching, exciting, rewarding, 'twer you but to embrace it as a lover.

What hope does God offer? The prayerful hope that you have lived your life cleaved to His decree, that you have not displeased Him overmuch, such that your life is cast into the baleful flames of Hell? That is not hope! That is uncertainty. Such is not love! It is but fear. It is the caress of a cruel lover, who will beat you the first moment, and kiss you the next.

Your conceptions of oblivion are your own, and not mine. Nietzsche is met with a smile and a condescending nod. Death may be a void, but it is one to be met with a glad heart, with the succouring knowledge that life has been well and fully lived, that the world is left a better place with the existence of those within it.

Nay, Sir. There is but one existence, one destiny, and it is lived here, in this life, in full and naked view of those who live it with you. The sham promises of an afterlife are but a paltry reflection of the wonder that is this life. This is not despair. This is not oblivion.

This is life.

And it is glorious.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:What hope

nigelTheBold wrote:
What hope does God offer? The prayerful hope that you have lived your life cleaved to His decree, that you have not displeased Him overmuch, such that your life is cast into the baleful flames of Hell? That is not hope! That is uncertainty. Such is not love! It is but fear. It is the caress of a cruel lover, who will beat you the first moment, and kiss you the next.

Hear, hear! 'Tis but fear and negligent abuse! Oh, how have I wished my fellow man free from such chains; bonds forged of foggy ignorance and the cold iron hand of worldly control! 

nigelTheBold wrote:
Death may be a void, but it is one to be met with a glad heart, with the succouring knowledge that life has been well and fully lived, that the world is left a better place with the existence of those within it.

Truly may one rejoice at the peace and rest of oblivion: whence no pain comes, nor care, nor punishment. All weariness lifted away by peace. Can there be a greater promise in robe-clad harp choirs? Nay, say not so! For what cruel fate would it be to toss man to another life, that he should once more take up the work placed upon him? Cruelety must have bounds!

Phil wrote:
Nay, Sir. There is but one existence, one destiny, and it is lived here, in this life, in full and naked view of those who live it with you. The sham promises of an afterlife are but a paltry reflection of the wonder that is this life. This is not despair. This is not oblivion.

But the promises of men are made chiefly of oblivion. Therefore mark them not too carefully. The mystery of truth is welcoming, but toils not for you. You must toil for it!

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
What hope does God offer? The prayerful hope that you have lived your life cleaved to His decree, that you have not displeased Him overmuch, such that your life is cast into the baleful flames of Hell? That is not hope! That is uncertainty. Such is not love! It is but fear. It is the caress of a cruel lover, who will beat you the first moment, and kiss you the next.

Hear, hear! 'Tis but fear and negligent abuse! Oh, how have I wished my fellow man free from such chains; bonds forged of foggy ignorance and the cold iron hand of worldly control! 

nigelTheBold wrote:
Death may be a void, but it is one to be met with a glad heart, with the succouring knowledge that life has been well and fully lived, that the world is left a better place with the existence of those within it.

Truly may one rejoice at the peace and rest of oblivion: whence no pain comes, nor care, nor punishment. All weariness lifted away by peace. Can there be a greater promise in robe-clad harp choirs? Nay, say not so! For what cruel fate would it be to toss man to another life, that he should once more take up the work placed upon him? Cruelety must have bounds!

Phil wrote:
Nay, Sir. There is but one existence, one destiny, and it is lived here, in this life, in full and naked view of those who live it with you. The sham promises of an afterlife are but a paltry reflection of the wonder that is this life. This is not despair. This is not oblivion.

But the promises of men are made chiefly of oblivion. Therefore mark them not too carefully. The mystery of truth is welcoming, but toils not for you. You must toil for it!

Hah! We crack me up.

Oh, I mean:

The veritable wit of these, our droll observations, have lightened my spirits immeasurably.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:The

nigelTheBold wrote:

The veritable wit of these, our droll observations, have lightened my spirits immeasurably.

Forsooth!

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I must say, Geezzz , you

I must say, Geezzz , you atheists are sooooo beautiful, and "gawed" is atheist of course ..... Wish you cats would write lots more nice "feel good" stuff. You is way good .....

 Joe Cocker - You are so beautiful (nearly unplugged) 3 mins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlDmslyGmGI

You are so beautiful to me
You are so beautiful to me
Can't you see
Your everything I hoped for
Your everything I need
You are so beautiful to me

Such joy and happiness you bring
Such joy and happiness you bring
Like a dream
A guiding light that shines in the night
Heavens gift to me
You are so beautiful to me - as sang by Joe Cocker

THANKS RRS ~

( Old ) Joe Cocker - With A Little Help From My Friends 6 mins , with guitarist Brian May of Queen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wG6Cgmgn5U&feature=related


( Young ) Joe Cocker - With a Little Help From My Friends (Woodstock) 8 mins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FMq0iDX1yE&NR=1

Am I crazy?.... atheist guys cry too .....as I AM .....  

 

 


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:You can

HisWillness wrote:
You can hope for whatever you want as long as you don't pretend it's true. Because then you're in the realm of "lying".

It is not about pretend though, for it is out of the utmost sincerity that the Christian heart believes and the mouth proclaims, "He is risen! He is risen indeed!" One can often find it easy to think that the Christian is in the practice of telling him/herself that Christ was truly resurrected enough times that it becomes truth to them and a most convincing one at that. This is the error of the opposition, we do not simply convince ourselves through habitual lying and denying obvious truth, but often just the opposite.

HisWillness wrote:
Probably not a great idea to take the ideas of Nietzsche as a personal philosophy anyway. He was pretty much nuts. I mean, the man makes for an entertaining read - don't get me wrong. Some brilliant ideas. But as a personal philosophy, unless your existence is pleased with a tortured quest for the world's most awesome philisophical one-liners, it's probably not well advised.

Yeah, Nietzsche is a great read...I enjoy how utterly pretentious he was. Despite my firm disagreement with his positions, it is the very fact of his egotism and pretentious mind that keeps me reading more. There is a problem with the first sentence that you wrote here, which is that in the proclamation of the atheist (strong atheist), Nietzsche inevitably comes out, often unbeknownst to the very atheist making the assertion. It is definitely not a good idea to apply his philosophy to the individual life, but sadly, people do indeed.

HisWillness wrote:
Sorry, who are we talking? Is this Christians?

Yes, we are talking Christians.

Objective observer: Why do Christians deny themselves the pleasures of life?

HisWillness wrote:
I'm going to say "tradition". Final answer.

Is that really consistent with reality, though? Were it that tradition compels the individual's belief then why are there many who come to such faith from atheistic or agnostic backgrounds? Why do so many children from Christian backgrounds fall away? No, it seems that tradition is not adequate enough to answer the question...in an...adequate manner.

HisWillness wrote:
Kind of, I guess. I mean if I say "when I die, I'll be dead" and leave it at that, it seems kind of obvious to me. The more elaborate and less founded situation of my non-existent soul coming out and floating to a place that's also non-existent so that it can either be punished or rewarded for ... it's so exhausting. I'd rather just have the peace and quiet.

Isn't it strange, though? Man desires peace from the worries and guilt of sinfulness and condemnation, yet runs through life at such a frantic pace to experience all that there is to feel pleasure before that great conqueror does the dance it does so well. In seeking peace and quiet, one travels away from it, but it is only in Christ Jesus that we finally find peace or the philosophical quenching to that which we thirst for.

HisWillness wrote:
Dude, I wouldn't be surprised. That's the kind of environment where your mind can just snap in all sorts of places. I actually won't try to tell you there isn't a higher power, especially if you're in NA. There's no way I'm messing with whatever keeps you on the straight and narrow. It's still way better being sober, if you'll allow me to encourage you (without pity or condescension, sincerely).

I appreciate it and I will stop here to say thank you for the amount of civility you have given to me. I hardly get that from someone who does not agree with my position...believe it or not, even from Christians who do not agree with my viewpoints on biblical eschatology. It is great to discuss this stuff with someone who does not think it is a personal attack. With that being said, allow me to continue the dismantling of your arguments.

(By the way, if that last sentence didn't get a laugh, then I just didn't do my job right.)

HisWillness wrote:
Certainly we have ignorance. It's a fact of life. Selective ignorance is a more heinous offense. Pretending to know something you cannot know goes beyond ignorance into lying.

I agree completely, which is why I will not pretend to be a biologist, mathematician, or a quantum physicist. In regards to the testimony of God's existence, though, it becomes different, for we are those to whom God's existence and Jesus' relationship to the Father has been revealed and knowledge of that which is far beyond our scope of perception can only be known through revelation by the one whose perception reaches that end.

HisWillness wrote:
I'll concede the possibility of life after death, but "possibility" is not knowledge. It's possible that unicorns exist, and we just haven't found one yet. That doesn't mean we know there are unicorns.

That is a giant step, though. Honestly. I take great disgust and joy in hearing someone proclaim that God does not exist and - believe me when I say this - that claim is made every day by countless people of all ages. I speak to such atheists nearly every day and cannot help but laugh shamefully for there is no greater fallacy in all of the world than when someone states, "There is no God."

HisWillness wrote:
Whoa there. I know about the Judeo-Christian God because of books. I didn't have to have faith to know about God, who to me is a cultural artifact. Much like Zeus, Apollo, Odin, Marduk or Amon-Ra might be to you.

Well, indeed you know the story of the Christian's interpretation of the divine, but does reading or hearing breed belief? No, not a bit. I think in this particular section of the discussion, we may find a great introduction to the synergism/monergism1 debate within the church.

Peace and love in His,

Phillip Nicewaner

 

1Synergism is that doctrine which teaches that salvation is the product of both intercession of the Holy Spirit and human will. This is largely an Arminian belief, if I am not mistaken (more information is in one of the books of my disheveled library).

Monergism is the position that salvation is the sole product of the Holy Spirit's intercession.

 

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

phillipnicew wrote:

Truthfully, though, each person is much better at submitting than they might think, for they do it every day.

I don't think submitting to the need to eat or go to the bathroom really counts, but if that's what you're driving at, sure. Or tapping out when someone gets a good arm-bar on. I'll give you that. But my whole person? Oh wait - paying taxes and obeying the law. I do that, too. I guess that's a form of submission. Do those count, or were you talking full mental submission? Because I don't tend to do that.

Submission is inevitable. We often say that we don't, but forget about the little things...ultimately, though, it is not about submitting, but relinquishing the things we enjoy that becomes the greatest stumbling block. I recall talking to an old coworker who was so astounded at my "dementedly optimistic" (haha) outlook on life and wanted to know why I always smiled, why I was always so happy. We held about fifteen conversations on the reason for the hope that I have and his particular block o'stumbling was sex. It is always something...mine was drugs.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold

nigelTheBold wrote:

phillipnicew wrote:

I do find that many of the thoughts I dwell on have already been dwelt upon by many who have come before. Perhaps it is truth enough to say that great minds do indeed think alike.

Yes. But fools seldom differ.

So...uh...was that supposed to be an insult?

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:"Sickly

nigelTheBold wrote:

"Sickly existence?" You beg the question, Sir. Existence is hardly sickly, nor is it destitute, devoid, devolved, or despairing. Existence is joyous, should you but endeavour to make it so. Existence is enriching, exciting, rewarding, 'twer you but to embrace it as a lover.

What hope does God offer? The prayerful hope that you have lived your life cleaved to His decree, that you have not displeased Him overmuch, such that your life is cast into the baleful flames of Hell? That is not hope! That is uncertainty. Such is not love! It is but fear. It is the caress of a cruel lover, who will beat you the first moment, and kiss you the next.

Your conceptions of oblivion are your own, and not mine. Nietzsche is met with a smile and a condescending nod. Death may be a void, but it is one to be met with a glad heart, with the succouring knowledge that life has been well and fully lived, that the world is left a better place with the existence of those within it.

Nay, Sir. There is but one existence, one destiny, and it is lived here, in this life, in full and naked view of those who live it with you. The sham promises of an afterlife are but a paltry reflection of the wonder that is this life. This is not despair. This is not oblivion.

This is life.

And it is glorious.

Nope, I did not beg the question, but reiterated Nietzsche's sentiment. It is also not sufficient to explain the Christian faith to be that which is based upon fear, but faith and joy. Fear comes in realizing that God demands certain things from us that we cannot and have not met, yet just as we become consumed by the dread of fear and certain condemnation, joy seeps into our hearts for there has been a ransom paid for our lives by the one Jesus the Christ, as was the conclusion by Paul in what is now known as the seventh chapter of his letter to the Roman church. We know that there is no condemnation for they who are in Christ Jesus.

Your position of proclaiming that there is only one existence and nothing else, cannot be truly known; this borders on the problem of the universal negative fallacy. Scope and perception, man, scope and perception.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
phillipnicew

phillipnicew wrote:

Nope, I did not beg the question, but reiterated Nietzsche's sentiment. It is also not sufficient to explain the Christian faith to be that which is based upon fear, but faith and joy. Fear comes in realizing that God demands certain things from us that we cannot and have not met, yet just as we become consumed by the dread of fear and certain condemnation, joy seeps into our hearts for there has been a ransom paid for our lives by the one Jesus the Christ, as was the conclusion by Paul in what is now known as the seventh chapter of his letter to the Roman church. We know that there is no condemnation for they who are in Christ Jesus.

Your position of proclaiming that there is only one existence and nothing else, cannot be truly known; this borders on the problem of the universal negative fallacy. Scope and perception, man, scope and perception.

It cannot truly be known, that's correct. However, there is no indication we have anything else at all. And so the assumption there is anything else has a worse problem than the negative fallacy; it has no evidence, and presupposes the existence of something beyond nature that also has no evidence. And then to suppose a specific form to a continued existence compounds the issue.

I was mostly trying to point out that your application of Nietzsche was a strawman. Most atheists (that I know, at least) do not suffer despair at the thought of oblivion. Most of us are not trying to kill the pain of the thought of death. Most of us are too busy living to give much thought to death at all. So, your depiction of atheists living in fear of death and meaninglessness is about as accurate as my depiction of Christians living in fear of their own God. Sure, there are some. But not many, not really.

I meant the rest of it, though. I truly love this life, and it's all I need. It's more precious to me because of its transiency than I can imagine of an eternity of afterlife. But that's just me. Your own thoughts and beliefs are your own, and as much as I think you're crazy, they belong to you and you alone. After all, I have some crazy beliefs, too, and they are mine. All mine.

My precious.

As far as the "Fools seldom differ" comment -- no, that wasn't supposed to be an insult. Haven't you ever heard that? Man, I grew up with that. Any time someone would say, "Great minds think alike," my mom would say, "Yes, but fools seldom differ." To point out that you can't always tell the difference between greatness and foolishness.

You've never heard that, huh? I do hope you didn't take offense. I didn't mean any.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:It cannot

nigelTheBold wrote:
It cannot truly be known, that's correct. However, there is no indication we have anything else at all. And so the assumption there is anything else has a worse problem than the negative fallacy; it has no evidence, and presupposes the existence of something beyond nature that also has no evidence. And then to suppose a specific form to a continued existence compounds the issue.

That is the problem, though. It is not that the belief of an afterlife is founded in nonsense or a lack of evidence, but rather is founded in a most fantastic word of great importance: revelation. The problem with what occurs after death is that no one can know for sure of their own volition because that is far beyond our scope of perception. When determining the existence or lack thereof or truthfulness of anything that is beyond our perception, we can only learn of and know of through revelation by the one whose perception goes to that end. In order to know truly that there is an afterlife, the knowledge must be revealed by the one whose perception is not limited as ours is. So, one may ponder:

-Why are Christians so sure that there is "life after death?"

In the question, we arrive at the consistent conclusion: revelation. We see Christianity is most accurately described as a "revealed religion," wherein God had revealed to mankind truths of what is to come. We are positive of life after death because it has been revealed to us as such, just as it was revealed to Abram (Genesis 12) or Simon Peter (Matthew 16:17). I find it most preposterous that many demand physical evidence of an existence after death, because of the impossibility of such things.

nigelTheBold wrote:
I was mostly trying to point out that your application of Nietzsche was a strawman. Most atheists (that I know, at least) do not suffer despair at the thought of oblivion. Most of us are not trying to kill the pain of the thought of death. Most of us are too busy living to give much thought to death at all. So, your depiction of atheists living in fear of death and meaninglessness is about as accurate as my depiction of Christians living in fear of their own God. Sure, there are some. But not many, not really.

No, it was used in the proper manner. Perhaps Nietzsche did not wish the conclusion to be associated with Christianity in any other way outside of Christianity being the cause of the sickness, but it was used appropriately. Regarding the issue of misery in atheists, I find it interesting to attribute a notion of "not seeing the forest for the trees" to such lifestyles. Being from such a lifestyle where God's will was not considered, there is a unique perspective of going into the meadow for the first time from a lifetime spent in the forest, under the trees. It should be addressed, though, that Christians do focus on a fear of the Lord...more on that later if you wish for me to elaborate.

nigelTheBold wrote:
I meant the rest of it, though. I truly love this life, and it's all I need. It's more precious to me because of its transiency than I can imagine of an eternity of afterlife. But that's just me. Your own thoughts and beliefs are your own, and as much as I think you're crazy, they belong to you and you alone. After all, I have some crazy beliefs, too, and they are mine. All mine.

My precious.

In this section, we arrive at a problem that is not unique between individuals. It is about relinquishing the life lived more than anything else, which fuels the notions that are fought. I know it, man, the cross is foolishness to the dying.

nigelTheBold wrote:
As far as the "Fools seldom differ" comment -- no, that wasn't supposed to be an insult. Haven't you ever heard that? Man, I grew up with that. Any time someone would say, "Great minds think alike," my mom would say, "Yes, but fools seldom differ." To point out that you can't always tell the difference between greatness and foolishness.

You've never heard that, huh? I do hope you didn't take offense. I didn't mean any.

No, I didn't take any offense to it, I was just unsure. I get insulted a lot by the opposition (atheistic or some so-called Christians over nonsense like eschatology) and I have found that the most damaging action a person can take in a discussion is to throw insults around. Perhaps I stop listening after the "great minds" part...heh.

Peace and love in His,

Phillip

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
phillipnicew wrote:This is

phillipnicew wrote:
This is the error of the opposition, we do not simply convince ourselves through habitual lying and denying obvious truth, but often just the opposite.

Your assertion was that "He is risen." I'll assume we're talking about Christ, who may or may not have existed. You basically have a book that was compiled in 325 by a council telling you that he did. That's all. Tacitus mentions him second-hand, and in a dubious manner. So your start is shaky. What's the likelyhood that he came back as a glowing zombie? Very low.

When I hear "he is risen", I know the person making this statement can't really know that any of it happened. They can have faith, in that they believe something regardless of what facts are presented to dissuade them. But that's still pretending to know something that you can't know. 

phillipnicew wrote:
There is a problem with the first sentence that you wrote here, which is that in the proclamation of the atheist (strong atheist), Nietzsche inevitably comes out, often unbeknownst to the very atheist making the assertion.

Let me know where I've quoted Nietzsche - I'm pretty sure I didn't.

HisWillness wrote:
Is that really consistent with reality, though? Were it that tradition compels the individual's belief then why are there many who come to such faith from atheistic or agnostic backgrounds? Why do so many children from Christian backgrounds fall away? No, it seems that tradition is not adequate enough to answer the question...in an...adequate manner.

Sure it does. Some people are drawn to tradition, and others are not. It explains both the joining and the leaving.

HisWillness wrote:
In seeking peace and quiet, one travels away from it, but it is only in Christ Jesus that we finally find peace or the philosophical quenching to that which we thirst for.

Only in Christ Jesus assumes you've exhausted every other possibility. Again with the pretending that you know something that you don't.

HisWillness wrote:
It is great to discuss this stuff with someone who does not think it is a personal attack. With that being said, allow me to continue the dismantling of your arguments.

That's the spirit! If you're going to be a fervent believer, at least have the balls to do it. Most of the guys who come on here start in with half-assed metaphysical nonsense, and end up confusing themselves and everybody else. (And you got a laugh.)

HisWillness wrote:
I agree completely, which is why I will not pretend to be a biologist, mathematician, or a quantum physicist. In regards to the testimony of God's existence, though, it becomes different, for we are those to whom God's existence and Jesus' relationship to the Father has been revealed and knowledge of that which is far beyond our scope of perception can only be known through revelation by the one whose perception reaches that end.

I'm sincerely interested in this proposition. How do you believe you came to have this "beyond perception"? The mechanism of revalation isn't clear to me.

HisWillness wrote:
I speak to such atheists nearly every day and cannot help but laugh shamefully for there is no greater fallacy in all of the world than when someone states, "There is no God."

I'm going with "chances are" no God. That's just math, though. I think you'd equally say, "there is no Thor", so you'll understand my position easily.

Okay, the synergism/monergism thing isn't really clear to me. Synergism: man and holy spirit work together, monergism: holy spirit does it alone? Is that about it?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
phillipnicew wrote:That is

phillipnicew wrote:

That is the problem, though. It is not that the belief of an afterlife is founded in nonsense or a lack of evidence, but rather is founded in a most fantastic word of great importance: revelation. The problem with what occurs after death is that no one can know for sure of their own volition because that is far beyond our scope of perception. When determining the existence or lack thereof or truthfulness of anything that is beyond our perception, we can only learn of and know of through revelation by the one whose perception goes to that end. In order to know truly that there is an afterlife, the knowledge must be revealed by the one whose perception is not limited as ours is. So, one may ponder:

-Why are Christians so sure that there is "life after death?"

In the question, we arrive at the consistent conclusion: revelation. We see Christianity is most accurately described as a "revealed religion," wherein God had revealed to mankind truths of what is to come. We are positive of life after death because it has been revealed to us as such, just as it was revealed to Abram (Genesis 12) or Simon Peter (Matthew 16:17). I find it most preposterous that many demand physical evidence of an existence after death, because of the impossibility of such things.

If belief is based on revelation, the next logical question is: how can you be sure of the revelation? How is the Christian revelation substantively different than the Muslim revelation? At what point does it cross from something told to something real?

I'm seriously curious about this. I've known many Christians in my life. I was married to one for several years. We've had these discussions, and I've always been at a loss as to the evidence the revelation is that of a true supernatural existence.

phillipnicew wrote:

No, it was used in the proper manner. Perhaps Nietzsche did not wish the conclusion to be associated with Christianity in any other way outside of Christianity being the cause of the sickness, but it was used appropriately. Regarding the issue of misery in atheists, I find it interesting to attribute a notion of "not seeing the forest for the trees" to such lifestyles. Being from such a lifestyle where God's will was not considered, there is a unique perspective of going into the meadow for the first time from a lifetime spent in the forest, under the trees. It should be addressed, though, that Christians do focus on a fear of the Lord...more on that later if you wish for me to elaborate.

Okay. I didn't realize you were simply talking about your own life. I thought you were trying to apply your experiences in life to all atheists. As for misery in my own life, when compared to that of the Christians I have known and loved (and some I have just liked), I have not found my life lacking in joy or meaning or happiness. And there are many, many atheists at this site who were once Christians, and they assure me there is no qualitative difference in the joy experienced while a Christian, or while an atheist. Nor is there more misery as an atheist.

As for the fear of the Lord: I do know about that. Again, while married to a fundamentalist Christian, I learned a lot about being a Christian. Although I wrote my original long overly-formal post in jest, I was half-serious about the co-dependent nature of a Christian and their Lord. One of the primary pieces of logic used to try and convert me is simply, "Why would you want to take a chance of ending up in Hell?"

This is the worst piece of logic ever. I know it's merely a restatement of Pascal's wager. When I was eight, having never heard of Pascal, I came to the same conclusion. "What does it hurt to believe in God? And if it's true, why would you want to end up in Hell?" Much of Christian ethics stems more from a fear of retribution than any true desire to simply do good, for no credit whatsoever. There is always credit in God's eyes to consider. And so this strips away the meaning from "good" and "bad" when discussing Christian actions. There is no question of whether an act is charitable, because there's always the undertone of, "Does this get me closer to Heaven?"

At least, that's how I see it. That's probably just as true as your statement about all atheists not being able to see the forest for the trees, so I guess we both have our preconceptions.

phillipnicew wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
I meant the rest of it, though. I truly love this life, and it's all I need. It's more precious to me because of its transiency than I can imagine of an eternity of afterlife. But that's just me. Your own thoughts and beliefs are your own, and as much as I think you're crazy, they belong to you and you alone. After all, I have some crazy beliefs, too, and they are mine. All mine.

My precious.

In this section, we arrive at a problem that is not unique between individuals. It is about relinquishing the life lived more than anything else, which fuels the notions that are fought. I know it, man, the cross is foolishness to the dying.

Which notions are fought? I'm unclear on the antecedent. I'm not quite sure about the cross and foolishness and dying bit, either. Could you elucidate?

I can discuss the whole concept of "relinquishing the life lived," though.

Why would I want to? As far as I know, it's the only thing I have.

phillipnicew wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
As far as the "Fools seldom differ" comment -- no, that wasn't supposed to be an insult. Haven't you ever heard that? Man, I grew up with that. Any time someone would say, "Great minds think alike," my mom would say, "Yes, but fools seldom differ." To point out that you can't always tell the difference between greatness and foolishness.

You've never heard that, huh? I do hope you didn't take offense. I didn't mean any.

No, I didn't take any offense to it, I was just unsure. I get insulted a lot by the opposition (atheistic or some so-called Christians over nonsense like eschatology) and I have found that the most damaging action a person can take in a discussion is to throw insults around. Perhaps I stop listening after the "great minds" part...heh.

Peace and love in His,

Phillip

Insults are damaging to the discussion, certainly, and damaging to the person throwing the insults. The person on the receiving end takes only as much damage as they are willing to take.

If I ever get to the point where I'm willing to insult you, I won't be passive-aggressive about it. You'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed. I don't anger easily. You'd have to do something pretty egregious for me to do that, like being wilfully ignorant, or intellectually dishonest. (Okay, maybe I do anger easily.) So far, you don't seem to be the type, so you have my respect (not that you need it, and not that it'll get you a Rooty-Tooty Fresh And Fruity at IHOPs).

Peace and Love.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Your

HisWillness wrote:
Your assertion was that "He is risen." I'll assume we're talking about Christ, who may or may not have existed. You basically have a book that was compiled in 325 by a council telling you that he did. That's all. Tacitus mentions him second-hand, and in a dubious manner. So your start is shaky. What's the likelyhood that he came back as a glowing zombie? Very low.

When I hear "he is risen", I know the person making this statement can't really know that any of it happened. They can have faith, in that they believe something regardless of what facts are presented to dissuade them. But that's still pretending to know something that you can't know.

Actually, it was indeed formally compiled in the fourth century, but the books which make the New Testament were recognized by the end of the first by the early church as inspired. Beyond that, the councils that were established, were not simply there to blatantly formulate beliefs, but to reiterate and defend the truth against the heresies of the movements of say Marcion and Arius, the latter of which being the battle that Athanasius is best remembered for.

The very first council, though, was the formal collection of what was known about God and Jesus, what was inspired, what was of God and what was not. We see that the early church was unable to devote much to doctrine and theology, for it was concerned with development and sustenance through the massive persecution that it faced from both ends (Roman and Jewish).

The ground isn't as shaky as it may seem. I am in the middle of a great amount of study and research into this, that I may also refute the mythicist nonsense that is being supported by one of the RRS leaders. Initially, though, we see that there is indeed a piece of wonderful historicity that attests to the truthfulness in the claims from first-hand experience and great amounts of research into the claims that were made...

It must also be noted that there have not been any "facts" that were presented to dissuade one from a belief in God. Funny enough, the existence of God is impossible to disprove. Scope and perception.

HisWillness wrote:
Let me know where I've quoted Nietzsche - I'm pretty sure I didn't.

It isn't about quoting, but rather echoing the sentiments and I don't believe I have read anything yet...but I am watching you...

HisWillness wrote:
Sure it does. Some people are drawn to tradition, and others are not. It explains both the joining and the leaving.

Does tradition overshadow the silly? Will one who is naturally drawn to tradition do so despite what they understand as silly? Much of those who are now serving the Lord are those who once found it silly, echoing the view of the one time vitriolic persecutor of the early church, Saul.

HisWillness wrote:
Only in Christ Jesus assumes you've exhausted every other possibility. Again with the pretending that you know something that you don't.

Again, it is not pretending....

1 Corinthians 2:14

HisWillness wrote:
That's the spirit! If you're going to be a fervent believer, at least have the balls to do it. Most of the guys who come on here start in with half-assed metaphysical nonsense, and end up confusing themselves and everybody else. (And you got a laugh.)

Well, don't get mistaken. I am deep in the pool of metaphysics, finding a unique relationship to the same intent behind the Thomistic way of thought. Unlike many Christians that you may talk to, I do not and will not claim to be an expert on all things. I love my brothers and sisters to death, but many of them often step on to subjects they know little about and do not substantiate their own claims...it is one area that I strive to exhort them to. A problem that I recognize in many of my bros and sisters in the Spirit is the issue of education and methodology.

A discussion or debate is often like chess. Each player is attempting to think several moves ahead, much like my discussion with that fella with the Simpsons picture and when I spoke about "revelation." The entire time I wrote it, I knew exactly where he was going to take it and where I would go from there.

HisWillness wrote:
I'm sincerely interested in this proposition. How do you believe you came to have this "beyond perception"? The mechanism of revalation isn't clear to me.

I don't possess the perception beyond my scope, but rather rely upon the one whose perception is more vast than mine. Consider the old example modified for my purpose:

Three blind men approach an elephant. One begins to feel the tail and says, "Behold, I have a rope." The second blind man leans against a leg and says, "What a sturdy tree." Last, but certainly not least, the third grasps the trunk and screeches for his recognizes that it is a snake. Each of the three are convinced of the truthfulness of their claims per their perception, but are all unaware of a young boy who stands several yards off observing the nonsense and seeing perfectly clear that they are man-handling an elephant who is growing more and more impatient with them.

The deist viewpoint, I suppose, would be that the young boy sees the foolish men and doesn't do a thing, nor does he care. The Judeo-Christian viewpoint, I suppose, would be that the boy approaches the men and warns them that they are truly groping an elephant.

If that doesn't do anything for you, consider then standing in the middle of a crop circle merely seeing the immediate, flattened grass, yet the pilot in a helicopter which is flying above decides to pick you up. As you go higher and higher, you see start to see more and more of the intricate patterns of something that is becoming increasingly more beautiful. This is a bit on the subject of revelation and when the universal negative becomes a logical fallacy and when it is not.

HisWillness wrote:
I'm going with "chances are" no God. That's just math, though. I think you'd equally say, "there is no Thor", so you'll understand my position easily.

Right on the Thor part, I do not ascribe to polytheism for its huge issues (Augustine's City of God covers this).

HisWillness wrote:
Okay, the synergism/monergism thing isn't really clear to me. Synergism: man and holy spirit work together, monergism: holy spirit does it alone? Is that about it?

Yeah, that is it in a nutshell.

Peace and love,

Phillip

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
phillipnicew wrote:The

phillipnicew wrote:

The ground isn't as shaky as it may seem. I am in the middle of a great amount of study and research into this, that I may also refute the mythicist nonsense that is being supported by one of the RRS leaders. Initially, though, we see that there is indeed a piece of wonderful historicity that attests to the truthfulness in the claims from first-hand experience and great amounts of research into the claims that were made...

Whoa, seriously? You need to cite that, because I've seen nothing contemporary at all, and I've looked. I'm not being argumentative, I'd really like to see contemporary evidence of Jesus. Preferably first hand, but second hand is okay, too.

phillipnicew wrote:
It must also be noted that there have not been any "facts" that were presented to dissuade one from a belief in God. Funny enough, the existence of God is impossible to disprove. Scope and perception.

Even just reasonably, it's not possible to disprove something that hasn't shown up. I couldn't disprove the existence of flying walruses, for example. I could say, however, that the likelyhood of the existence of flying walruses is extremely small. That's all I'm stating about God as part of the set "the supernatural".

phillipnicew wrote:
It isn't about quoting, but rather echoing the sentiments and I don't believe I have read anything yet...but I am watching you...

Haha! Let me know if I even come close to quoting Nietsche, because then you'll know I'm drunk.

phillipnicew wrote:
Does tradition overshadow the silly?

Yeah, all the time. My family wears the little paper crown things that come out of those Christmas crackers every year. Have you ever been to a Catholic mass? That's pretty silly, and heavy with tradition. Sit; stand; kneel; stand; sit; stand; kneel, etc.

phillipnicew wrote:
Again, it is not pretending....

But you're saying that you know something, and there's no way that you actually know it to be fact. Maybe we're using different definitions of the word "know". I know for sure that I have five fingers on my hand. It's right there, I can take pictures of it, etc. You have words written hundreds of years ago, translated and copied (possibly incorrectly) over several generations. I'd take the bible with a grain of salt. I don't even have any evidence that any of the things in that collection of books took place.

phillipnicew wrote:
Well, don't get mistaken. I am deep in the pool of metaphysics, finding a unique relationship to the same intent behind the Thomistic way of thought.

Thomism would be a good place to start, I guess. It's difficult to find a place for it in modern philosophy, but historically it has interest and meaning.

phillipnicew wrote:
A discussion or debate is often like chess.

You could look at it like that, but for me, it's about finding the nature of faith. I don't really understand it. I don't know what differentiates it from delusion. I've never had faith, so it's fascinating to me. I can't really "lose" a discovery of this kind, since evidence is my weak point.

phillipnicew wrote:
I don't possess the perception beyond my scope, but rather rely upon the one whose perception is more vast than mine.

How does this "one" contact you, if not through your perception? This is more on the mechanism of revelation that I'd like to understand.

phillipnicew wrote:
Consider the old example modified for my purpose:

Three blind men approach an elephant. [...] 

You're describing differences in perception. The three blind men are blind. The person who cannot see the forest for the trees (or crop circle, etc.) are all examples of perception. The men are blind, and the man on the ground lacks perspective. Your avenue to enhanced perception is what I'm asking for. "Jesus Christ" isn't really an answer, because both you and I know that Jesus doesn't pull up a chair and lay it down for you. There's something else happening in your perception. I really want to understand what that is.

phillipnicew wrote:
Yeah, that is [synergism/monergism] in a nutshell.

Okay, now how's it relevant?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:If belief

nigelTheBold wrote:
If belief is based on revelation, the next logical question is: how can you be sure of the revelation? How is the Christian revelation substantively different than the Muslim revelation? At what point does it cross from something told to something real?

I'm seriously curious about this. I've known many Christians in my life. I was married to one for several years. We've had these discussions, and I've always been at a loss as to the evidence the revelation is that of a true supernatural existence.

Thank you nigel. I was wondering how I was going to include that interfaith revelation topic with the paragraph that talked about it, but I figured it would be less effective that way. Revelation has to abide first by consistency. Islam suffers at a multitude of problems:

1. Muhammed appealed to man's passions for physical pleasure. Basically, that is to say, follow the Islamic way and you will be favored with virgins fair, served by the forever young.

2. Allah is an impotent god...or partially impotent. There is no true justice in the Islamic faith for the sins committed and for being the true restoration of the sole monotheistic faith, they lose sight of God's holiness.

In Christianity, we see God as a just Creator whose wrath is deserved upon all who sin against His holy name (Genesis 18:16-33; 19; Romans 6:23). Even in forgiveness, God's wrath was lashed out on our propitiation - Christ Jesus, the flawless Lamb and faultless sacrifice, whose blood was shed for us. Just as in the days of the passover, where the heads of the household sprinkled the lamb's blood on the top and sides of the door frame so that the Lord's wrath would pass them over, so too does His wrath pass over those who are covered by His blood, which is why He is labeled our Passover Lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). Secondly, we see a different view, a selfless view of heaven, wherein our reward is not individual gain, but rather a selfless expression of love and worship and reverence for the benevolent Creator of existence; this staying consistent with the notion of denying oneself.

nigelTheBold wrote:
Okay. I didn't realize you were simply talking about your own life. I thought you were trying to apply your experiences in life to all atheists. As for misery in my own life, when compared to that of the Christians I have known and loved (and some I have just liked), I have not found my life lacking in joy or meaning or happiness. And there are many, many atheists at this site who were once Christians, and they assure me there is no qualitative difference in the joy experienced while a Christian, or while an atheist. Nor is there more misery as an atheist.

I wasn't just talking about my individual life. I was talking as a whole. There is a problem in that we are discussing people who are switching sides as nonchalantly as one who is at one time a personal banker and, at another, a sales associate with a department store. (1 John 2:19)

nigelTheBold wrote:
As for the fear of the Lord: I do know about that. Again, while married to a fundamentalist Christian, I learned a lot about being a Christian. Although I wrote my original long overly-formal post in jest, I was half-serious about the co-dependent nature of a Christian and their Lord. One of the primary pieces of logic used to try and convert me is simply, "Why would you want to take a chance of ending up in Hell?"

Heh...Pascal's wager? That is a failed notion. It relies on the principle of "keeping the bases covered," but cannot be reconciled to Christian faith, for if it were simply just trying to keep the bases covered, you would be better off living as a person who doesn't really care either way, eating and drinking. Beyond that, the acceptance of Christ as Lord does not happen often through this style of evangelism and rarely ever through Pascal's wager, but rather through selfless service and the Christian's striving for individual equality and human rights.

nigelTheBold wrote:
This is the worst piece of logic ever. I know it's merely a restatement of Pascal's wager. When I was eight, having never heard of Pascal, I came to the same conclusion. "What does it hurt to believe in God? And if it's true, why would you want to end up in Hell?" Much of Christian ethics stems more from a fear of retribution than any true desire to simply do good, for no credit whatsoever. There is always credit in God's eyes to consider. And so this strips away the meaning from "good" and "bad" when discussing Christian actions. There is no question of whether an act is charitable, because there's always the undertone of, "Does this get me closer to Heaven?"

My dad, who is one of the most brilliant men I have ever known, if not the most, gave me the Pascal's wager after I arrived at it on my own a couple of times, but I was never really convinced by that. Christian ethics is more than fear of retribution, but is about growth and conforming to the likeness of the Son. We are merciful, just as our Father is merciful and we love just as God is love and strive to truthfulness for God is light and no darkness abides in Him (Lk 6:36; 1 Jn 1:5-7; 3:11-24; 4:7-21; 2 Jn 1:6).

nigelTheBold wrote:
Which notions are fought? I'm unclear on the antecedent. I'm not quite sure about the cross and foolishness and dying bit, either. Could you elucidate?

I can discuss the whole concept of "relinquishing the life lived," though.

Why would I want to? As far as I know, it's the only thing I have.

Ah, joy in clarity! Surely, you will know that which I speak in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31.

nigelTheBold wrote:
If I ever get to the point where I'm willing to insult you, I won't be passive-aggressive about it. You'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed. I don't anger easily. You'd have to do something pretty egregious for me to do that, like being wilfully ignorant, or intellectually dishonest. (Okay, maybe I do anger easily.) So far, you don't seem to be the type, so you have my respect (not that you need it, and not that it'll get you a Rooty-Tooty Fresh And Fruity at IHOPs).

Heh...armed? That is some serious stuff, man! Beware, though, I was taught combat from the ages of nine to eighteen. Before I came to Christ, I studied a lot of eastern philosophy and its relationship with combat and the way of combat. Still waters, man. Haha! Thank God I am a pacifist.

Peace and Love.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Whoa,

HisWillness wrote:

Whoa, seriously? You need to cite that, because I've seen nothing contemporary at all, and I've looked. I'm not being argumentative, I'd really like to see contemporary evidence of Jesus. Preferably first hand, but second hand is okay, too.

Haha, I am probably going to irritate you with the answer, but I have to jet. Gotta get my beauty rest, early start tomorrow with trying to navigate the flood waters on my way to work.

Gotta know when to leave'em hangin'!

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
phillipnicew wrote:Haha, I

phillipnicew wrote:
Haha, I am probably going to irritate you with the answer, but I have to jet. Gotta get my beauty rest, early start tomorrow with trying to navigate the flood waters on my way to work.

Good luck with the flood waters. The only way you could irritate me with the answer would be something like "I went back in time and shook hands with the man." Mostly, I'd be irritated that you didn't mention your time machine earlier.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
An Atheist's revelation to

An Atheist's revelation to the Xains ....

It just seems so ovbious to my small mind that Xains do not understand the message or revelation of the simple "atheistic" Jesus/Buddha wisdom that;  All is ONE, I AM one with the father/mother cosmos god. I have come from the eternal and will go into the eternal, ..... in this sense we know that we never die, and this is the new enightened awakening of ancient man. And so yes the "Christ has risin" in the understanding of that message, that this is the "kingdom/heaven" NOW and Eternal and ONE.
 
Most all Xains are Idol worshipers and separatists, "looking" for god. Jesus/Buddha message was a great simple one, most still do not understood.  

In the spirit of that simple "saving" message I would never call myself a Xian. It's more of an insult to the message, and because of what Xainity has become and it's history is so evil.             

I AM a jesus/buddha fan and always will be. That is because the spirit of the message has been revealed to me. I AM GOD AS YOU AS ALL IS ONE ...... What a great message, considering such superstitious unscientific ancient times. YES,  'Now we are equal and will protect all life as I see you and me and all as one. WAR nevermore. Love the enemy by understanding and teaching them that we are ONE.

Xian revelation is not revelation at all in the way it is mostly taught,  .... and I must say it is more the Devil of wrong thinking.  

My Atheist Jesus is better than the Xain Jesus, ..... Comparing them is the "Sword" of debate out of the endless love spring  ..... Jeusu/Buddha wisdom is so simple and so awesome. Why do people not get it ?????   The answer is obvious, to those "Awake", to those who have taken "Christ" truly into their own being.

God of Abe followers are blind sheep, and therefore dangerous hypocrites.

Jesus Rocks, The Bible Sucks. Written words are unnecessary for knowing "GOD" and so often a hindrince to revelation, salvation or whatever fancy religious words we devise to descripe "Oneness". Take the truth to the Bibles, instead of looking for "truth" and re-write it a thousand new ways.  

In the spirit of using words, Xains need serious doses of Buddha understanding. The west needs to embrace the east.

I AM not a buddhist but a fan. I personally refuse all such labels. I have no such lable, because I AM in fact GOD as YOU.  There is nothing higher to worship. Seek knowledge of yourself, as all the cosmos is YOU.

This message was a revelation to you, that  I tried to put into words. I AM sure most no one will understand it ...... afterall, I AM G AWE D. ~
____________________________________________________

BTW, fix the devil TV, and heal the possessed churches, etc.
.... remember the old propaganda, " the commies are ruthless heathens, and the non-xains are all going to hell " ....... the world is in dire poverty of wisdom. The divide between the have and have nots is a disgrace .... and what is the church doing about all this ? ..........

If we happily shared everything we would all behold this life "treasure", and no one would be "rich or poor", and heaven would be better known NOW  .... as Jesus tried to say .....       
    -------------------------------
If big J now appeared on this A chat site, he would realize the atheists are already half "saved", and would ask who are the "blind" guys, .... "the X people" the A's would shout, and that is where he "doctor" J would go .....
---------------------------------
"Half of what I say is meaningless, but I say it so that the other half may reach you." ~  Khalil Gibran,  3rd most popular poet of all time. ( adapted by John Lennon, in the song "Jilia" )


Much of Gibran's writings deal with Christianity, mostly condemning it's corrupt practices and false teachings. "Unity" he insisted.


This is from his short poem, "On Religion"
Your daily life is your temple and your religion.
Whenever you enter into it take with you your all.
Take the plough and the forge and the mallet and the lute,
The things you have fashioned in necessity or for delight.
For in revery you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures.
And take with you all men:
For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair. ~ Khalil Gibran


Source  http://www.katsandogz.com/onreligion.html
I googled "the religion of Khalil Gibran", a fav of my late atheist mom.   http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=the+religion+of+Khalil+Gibran&btnG=Search
 

I AM sorry, for what I can-not say ..... ((((     *      ))))  and caring J wepted .... and so now you will do "greater works than me" ...... in the name of glorious GaweD .... as Y O U   indeed are .....  

That's this old fucks comfortable guess ..... L O L  , and hey young kids, be a scientist, a teacher, an activist, and save them dangerous sick God of Abe people  ..... love them as in truly understanding them .....  God Bless the sick !   

This is not THE END  ....  not even close .... J story telling goofed on that,   .....  as I AM .... as YOU ....   

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
.... wow I can really

 .... wow I can really REALLY feel it !!!!!  , wow G A W E D !  I gotta write some dogma quick , I AM so feeling it !     I gotta tell the world about G O D    

I AM here to debate so that all of YOU will >WIN???< ..... ALL of US ..... 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:It

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:
It just seems so ovbious to my small mind that Xains do not understand the message or revelation of the simple "atheistic" Jesus/Buddha wisdom that;  All is ONE, I AM one with the father/mother cosmos god.

That idea really hasn't found its way into Western thought, though. Even though the connection to our environment is obvious, since we eat parts of our environment and later cut our hair, go to the bathroom and otherwise incorporate parts of ourselves back into it. It should be the easiest thing to see that even without a special god-thing, we're connected.

The illusion is that we're seperate from the earth, when we're really just a surface anomaly.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
phillipnicew wrote:In

phillipnicew wrote:

In Christianity, we see God as a just Creator whose wrath is deserved upon all who sin against His holy name (Genesis 18:16-33; 19; Romans 6:23). Even in forgiveness, God's wrath was lashed out on our propitiation - Christ Jesus, the flawless Lamb and faultless sacrifice, whose blood was shed for us. Just as in the days of the passover, where the heads of the household sprinkled the lamb's blood on the top and sides of the door frame so that the Lord's wrath would pass them over, so too does His wrath pass over those who are covered by His blood, which is why He is labeled our Passover Lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). Secondly, we see a different view, a selfless view of heaven, wherein our reward is not individual gain, but rather a selfless expression of love and worship and reverence for the benevolent Creator of existence; this staying consistent with the notion of denying oneself.

So the truth of a revelation is its internal consistency? I agree the Bible is more internally-consistent than the qu'uaran, so by the metric, the Bible is more believable.

Quote:

I wasn't just talking about my individual life. I was talking as a whole. There is a problem in that we are discussing people who are switching sides as nonchalantly as one who is at one time a personal banker and, at another, a sales associate with a department store. (1 John 2:19)

Gotcha. That makes sense.

That is one of the problems I've always faced when discussing belief. Some Christians assume I can just begin to believe, and that I don't believe just to be stubborn, or because I'm being selfish, or because I fear the judgement of God. Faith isn't attached to a switch that can be turned on or off at will.

I finally came to terms with my atheism when I was about 23. I have been an atheist all my life, but I hadn't known many other atheists, other than my mom. So there was always a slight feeling of not belonging, and an uneasy desire to believe simply so I could belong. When I discovered the internet 17 years ago, I started hanging out in usenet groups, and discovered that the world is full of people who don't believe in God. I found out I do belong. And that was quite a revelation.

Quote:
nigelTheBold wrote:
Which notions are fought? I'm unclear on the antecedent. I'm not quite sure about the cross and foolishness and dying bit, either. Could you elucidate?

I can discuss the whole concept of "relinquishing the life lived," though.

Why would I want to? As far as I know, it's the only thing I have.

Ah, joy in clarity! Surely, you will know that which I speak in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31.

Clarity indeed. Thank you.

Quote:

Heh...armed? That is some serious stuff, man! Beware, though, I was taught combat from the ages of nine to eighteen. Before I came to Christ, I studied a lot of eastern philosophy and its relationship with combat and the way of combat. Still waters, man. Haha! Thank God I am a pacifist.

Peace and Love.

I was quoting from the TV show Firefly. Just havin' some fun. I too am a pacifist, and have been highly trained in the art of shooting strangers by our most excellent US Army. I'd be a vegetarian, too, except God's creatures sure are tasty. So I reckon I am a bit of a hypocrite that way.

Anyway, I don't think I have a lot to contribute to this discussion. This seems to be more up Will's alley than mine. I'll be reading though, and maybe dropping in for an occassional comment here and there, if I see something I can tackle.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:I too am

nigelTheBold wrote:
I too am a pacifist, and have been highly trained in the art of shooting strangers by our most excellent US Army. I'd be a vegetarian, too, except God's creatures sure are tasty. So I reckon I am a bit of a hypocrite that way.

But the creatures *are* tasty. I don't see how that makes you a hypocrite. Maybe if you told other people that they shouldn't eat the creatures while you were eating them, that might be hypocritical.

So we're all "trained" are we? That's a bizarre coincidence.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:So the

nigelTheBold wrote:
So the truth of a revelation is its internal consistency? I agree the Bible is more internally-consistent than the qu'uaran, so by the metric, the Bible is more believable.

Eh...it is more of an indicator of truthful revelation. Consistency is but one of a multitude of indicators that are very related with each other. There are a great deal of aspects that set Christianity apart. First, consider the hopelessness in Buddhism, wherein Buddha's final words included, "Work out your own salvations with diligence" or of Islam who pray so much daily that they may be forgiven by a most holy god who has been sinned against or in the preposterous all-encompassing Hinduism, where Hindus are free to worship as they see fit, even through atheism. Let us observe Christianity as the one faith where salvation had come to us in the form of the eternal King borne upon a feeding trough and later crucified under Pilate, who also intercedes for us to the most holy God, who also is the only way. Secondly, among the world faiths, we see Christianity as that which is not a faith dependent upon inheritance or cultural identity as one may say of Hinduism or Chinese ancestor worship, but of a unique requirement of personal dedication or faith in the one, Jesus Christ. 

nigelTheBold wrote:
Gotcha. That makes sense.

That is one of the problems I've always faced when discussing belief. Some Christians assume I can just begin to believe, and that I don't believe just to be stubborn, or because I'm being selfish, or because I fear the judgement of God. Faith isn't attached to a switch that can be turned on or off at will.

I finally came to terms with my atheism when I was about 23. I have been an atheist all my life, but I hadn't known many other atheists, other than my mom. So there was always a slight feeling of not belonging, and an uneasy desire to believe simply so I could belong. When I discovered the internet 17 years ago, I started hanging out in usenet groups, and discovered that the world is full of people who don't believe in God. I found out I do belong. And that was quite a revelation.

Truth often does make sense. Agreed, faith is not simple, but it is not always as easy as being that you are unable to believe. I remember reading something in the historical record written by Luke the physician and companion of Paul after his conversion on the road to Damascus, where Paul is standing before King Agrippa  and Agrippa expresses the same sentiment:

"Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

To which Paul says:

"Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

O! How joyous would it be indeed that you would come swiftly to Christ, but short time or long - I pray God that not only you but all who read these words may become what I am, except for the ridicule.

nigelTheBold wrote:
I was quoting from the TV show

Firefly

. Just havin' some fun. I too am a pacifist, and have been highly trained in the art of shooting strangers by our most excellent US Army. I'd be a vegetarian, too, except God's creatures sure are tasty. So I reckon I am a bit of a hypocrite that way.

Anyway, I don't think I have a lot to contribute to this discussion. This seems to be more up Will's alley than mine. I'll be reading though, and maybe dropping in for an occasional comment here and there, if I see something I can tackle.

No, not a hypocrite, but rather an effect of the sin that was introduced into the world by the first Adam.

Peace and love,

Phillip

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
I too am a pacifist, and have been highly trained in the art of shooting strangers by our most excellent US Army. I'd be a vegetarian, too, except God's creatures sure are tasty. So I reckon I am a bit of a hypocrite that way.

But the creatures *are* tasty. I don't see how that makes you a hypocrite. Maybe if you told other people that they shouldn't eat the creatures while you were eating them, that might be hypocritical.

So we're all "trained" are we? That's a bizarre coincidence.

Eh...not really that bizarre. Many take some form of combat training, whether it be basic karate or through the armed forces. Mine was via my pops, who studied Aikido and Tae Kwon Do. I also picked a lot of stuff up through the various people I ran with and the studies of mine. Nowadays, the way I fight resembles something of a mix between aikido and street fighting. Yeah...that's right...I'm bad. Heh.

Not really, I am just a big ole puppy dog. Ha!

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


phillipnicew
Posts: 26
Joined: 2008-03-17
User is offlineOffline
I AM GOD AS YOU wrote: ....

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

 .... wow I can really REALLY feel it !!!!!  , wow G A W E D !  I gotta write some dogma quick , I AM so feeling it !     I gotta tell the world about G O D    

I AM here to debate so that all of YOU will >WIN???< ..... ALL of US ..... 

I mean this out of love, but this reminded me something of an acid trip...or the product of one.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  you are  right

  you are  right phillipnicew  , I never came down, LSD changed my mind forever, It was that last "purple double dome" trip 30 some yrs ago ..... my last ..... a blessing ....   Caution, use carefully under supervision !  


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
NOTE , the first line in the

NOTE , the first line in the bible says "When god began creating",  

WOW, what a goofy comic book this will be  .... geezzz, even the first line is a great joke ...... as if there was a beginning ..... giggles  ..... religion is funny, then it get's so dangerous, ..... poor murdered jesus .....