Does atheism make sense?

theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Does atheism make sense?

 If I say I don't believe in Leprachuans, we have an immediate understanding of what that means, i.e. that I don't believe in little green beings that place pots of gold at the end of every rainbow.

What you hear more often than not is a disbeliever who treats a disbelief in God, with God being conceived of as a simple concept like leprechauns, there by removing disbelief from any other implications like on a worldview, or philosophy, even though belief in God is never separated from the worldview, or perspective on life of the believer, for some reason atheist still feel that disbelief can be separated from a worldview, from a perspective on life.

If i were to tell a person who had no idea what the term Leprachaun means, he might ask me what is the meaning of "Leprachuans", i would tell him that they are little green men who place pots of gold at the end of every rainbow. And it's easy to see why a disbelief in Leprachuans doesn't have much of an implication on much else, like a worldview, my perspective on life. Because Leprechauns don't really have an emblematic quality.

The mistake by many atheist is to treat God as such as well, when God has a component that Leprachauns don't have, an emblematic conception of him, the representive of perspective on life, a worldview. That denial of God is in fact a statement affirming a particular view of life. A denial of a worldview is an affirmation of another one. A denial of a world with a transcendent purpose and meaning, is an affirmation of a worldview in which life has no transcendent purpose and meaning. 

Nearly all theistic conceptions of God no matter what the particular sect of theism are statements of a perspective on life. God is emblematic of these conceptions. 

For fundamentalist and others God is emblematic of the supposed inherent design and order of life. That if their belief is solely based on this, their God concept cannot be distinguished from what it's emblematic of (such as the silliness of separating symbols from what they are symbolic of). There statement on their perspective on life is that life has an inherent design and order, an atheist who denies this is affirming a perspective on life in which life has no inherent design and order. They are affirming certain parts of a worldview, by their disbelief in God.

For me, as a mainline Christian, my belief in God is solely based on a meaning and purpose to human existence, and that any future sense of disbelief would solely be based on a denial of this meaning and purpose. A belief in what this meaning and purpose is, and a belief in God don't equal two, God is only that symbol that embodies that meaning. And a denial of God is an affirmation of an alternative worldview. In fact the reason why I am not an atheist, a muslim, or a hindu, or a pagan, is that I don't believe in their worldview, I don't believe in what their Gods are emblematic of. 

While atheism is not a complete worldview, it is an affirmation of a partial one, because a denial of God who is emblematic of a perspective on life, is affirmation of an alternative perspective on it.

A belief or disbelief in God is not the same as disbelief in toothy fairies, who are simply little flying hot chicks in bikinis, nothing more nothing less, a belief in God is composed of emblematic conceptions, symbolic of a perspective on life. All theistic beliefs no matter of what stripe can be broken down as such.

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Somebody call the proctologist!

theidiot wrote:

 If I say I don't believe in Leprachuans, we have an immediate understanding of what that means, i.e. that I don't believe in little green beings that place pots of gold at the end of every rainbow.

What you hear more often than not is a disbeliever who treats a disbelief in God, with God being conceived of as a simple concept like leprechauns, there by removing disbelief from any other implications like on a worldview, or philosophy, even though belief in God is never separated from the worldview, or perspective on life of the believer, for some reason atheist still feel that disbelief can be separated from a worldview, from a perspective on life.

My immediate understanding of god includes:

An 'intelligent' creator

A being that is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

A being that really cares if we believe (and worship) it.

Some variations thereupon:

  • A being that sacrificed itself to itself to persuade itself not to punish us for turning out the way it made us.
  • A being that prefers to speak 7th century arabic with inhibitions about pork and alcohol.
  • A six-armed elephant who likes the smell of incense.

I disbelieve in these things.

theidiot wrote:


If i were to tell a person who had no idea what the term Leprachaun means, he might ask me what is the meaning of "Leprachuans", i would tell him that they are little green men who place pots of gold at the end of every rainbow. And it's easy to see why a disbelief in Leprachuans doesn't have much of an implication on much else, like a worldview, my perspective on life. Because Leprechauns don't really have an emblematic quality.

I hereby announce that I don't believe in leprechauns, with or without emblematic qualities.

theidiot wrote:

That denial of God is in fact a statement affirming a particular view of life. A denial of a worldview is an affirmation of another one. A denial of a world with a transcendent purpose and meaning, is an affirmation of a worldview in which life has no transcendent purpose and meaning.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

theidiot wrote:




Nearly all theistic conceptions of God no matter what the particular sect of theism are statements of a perspective on life. God is emblematic of these conceptions.

I disbelieve that a 'perspective on life' is something to be handed down from above.  It is up to us to find our perspective.

theidiot wrote:




For fundamentalist and others God is emblematic of the supposed inherent design and order of life. That if their belief is solely based on this, their God concept cannot be distinguished from what it's emblematic of (such as the silliness of separating symbols from what they are symbolic of). There statement on their perspective on life is that life has an inherent design and order, an atheist who denies this is affirming a perspective on life in which life has no inherent design and order. They are affirming certain parts of a worldview, by their disbelief in God.

An unbiased appraisal of life and the universe will quickly reveal that there is no inherent design and order, certainly none that can be attributed to god. 

theidiot wrote:



For me, as a mainline Christian...

Mainline by whose standards?

theidiot wrote:


... my belief in God is solely based on a meaning and purpose to human existence, and that any future sense of disbelief would solely be based on a denial of this meaning and purpose.

Agreed.  If the meaning and purpose of our lives is to worship a bloody corpse nailed to a tree (or at least the 'mainline' version of that bloody corpse), I deny that meaning and purpose.

theidiot wrote:


A belief in what this meaning and purpose is, and a belief in God don't equal two, God is only that symbol that embodies that meaning. And a denial of God is an affirmation of an alternative worldview. In fact the reason why I am not an atheist, a muslim, or a hindu, or a pagan, is that I don't believe in their worldview, I don't believe in what their Gods are emblematic of.

So that's why.  I'm guessing the reason why the atheist, the muslim, the hindu and pagan aren't mainline christians are because they don't believe in your worldview. 

Thanks for clearing that up.  We were confused.

theidiot wrote:



A belief or disbelief in God is not the same as disbelief in toothy fairies, who are simply little flying hot chicks in bikinis, nothing more nothing less, a belief in God is composed of emblematic conceptions, symbolic of a perspective on life. All theistic beliefs no matter of what stripe can be broken down as such.

 

For the fact that there is as little evidence for god as for tooth fairies, the disbelief is very much the same.  Forcing a 'worldview' upon your god concept does not push it any closer within the bounds of credibility.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Ah, hypothetical red herring

Ah, hypothetical red herring semantics warfare, how interesting.

So, if I attached philosophical concepts to my belief in flying hot chicks in bikinis and you denied their existence, then your denial represents a perspective on life?

By the way, which God are you referring to?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:My

zarathustra wrote:


My immediate understanding of god includes:

An 'intelligent' creator

A being that is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

A being that really cares if we believe (and worship) it.

The problem of this notion of belief is that it's not really thought out, or reflective on what these beliefs are composed and dependent of. 

There is a reason why theist infer that God in omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevelent, and that their God is a creator deity, these beliefs arise because a God of purpose and meaning is dependent on these things. If human existence has inherent sense of purpose and meaning, only that which created life can give it, and if the purpose and meaning is to be sustained and fulfilled regardless of adversary only that which is all powerful can do so.

Beliefs such as love conquers all, that love triumphs in the end such as the beliefs of slaves, and the struggling blacks of the civil right era, in any concrete sense requires a belief in a transcendent meaning and purpose to human existence, and a power that sees it's fulfillment.

Quote:
You say that as if it's a bad thing.

No, I don't say it as a bad thing, It's criticism of atheist who claim that atheism is not a worldview, not even a partial one, not that the worldview is necessarily a bad one. 

Quote:
I disbelieve that a 'perspective on life' is something to be handed down from above.  It is up to us to find our perspective.

I never said it is to be handed down from above. The real distinction between a Christian perspective and disbeliever perspective is not that one is handed down from above, but that one perspective is seen as true while all others are false. That the only real way making sense of life is from the perspective of the cross. 

Quote:
An unbiased appraisal of life and the universe will quickly reveal that there is no inherent design and order, certainly none that can be attributed to god. 

We make sense of life by it's mechanics and it's poetics, one perspective is it's how, the other is its why. Nothing in nature compels me to believe in inherent design and order, only in meaning do I believe. Left to view life only from the sciences I would be disbeliever, left to view life from the perspective of human misery, human hopes, beauty, do I believe in the perspective of the cross, and it's transformation.

There is no such thing as one who holds to an unbiased appraisal of life, in that we are all subjective participants of it. And it is in the nature of human conception to view life both creatively, and in it's rawness. Does unbiased appraisal of life deny the ideas of Rev. King, that love overcomes hate, that love will triumph in the end? That the oppressed will be vindicated? That love will eventually reign? Does it deny that Hope exists, even when it isn't readily apparent?

Quote:
Mainline by whose standards?

 

By the standard the constitutes the branches of mainline christianity. 

Quote:
Agreed.  If the meaning and purpose of our lives is to worship a bloody corpse nailed to a tree (or at least the 'mainline' version of that bloody corpse), I deny that meaning and purpose.

 

The meaning of a painting is not that its an organized slab of paint, the meaning of wedding ring is not that its some piece of metal one attaches to a finger. The meaning of the cross is not the worship of bloody corpse nailed to a tree, but from the perspective of the Gospels is the worship of that which triumphs over misery and despair, over death, and humiliation.  

Quote:
So that's why.  I'm guessing the reason why the atheist, the muslim, the hindu and pagan aren't mainline christians are because they don't believe in your worldview. 

Thanks for clearing that up.  We were confused.

Yep, its not about a disbelief in a literal hercules or zeus, but what these myths say about life, that makes me not a pagan. 

 

Quote:

Forcing a 'worldview' upon your god concept does not push it any closer within the bounds of credibility.

No one is forcing a worldview upon a God concept, a God concept is a worldview, as God is representative of that view. Only if one argues that my view of life is false, can one rid me of belief. 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


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

theidiot wrote:
The mistake by many atheist is to treat God as such as well, when God has a component that Leprachauns don't have, an emblematic conception of him, the representive of perspective on life, a worldview.

Okay, I'll accept that God represents a moral position for many.

theidiot wrote:
That denial of God is in fact a statement affirming a particular view of life. A denial of a worldview is an affirmation of another one. A denial of a world with a transcendent purpose and meaning, is an affirmation of a worldview in which life has no transcendent purpose and meaning.

Quite the jump, but yes: I'd agree that this life has no transcendent purpose and meaning. Considering my purpose and yours are different, and things mean different things to the two of us, I think we've just proven conclusively that there is no transcendent purpose or meaning.

theidiot wrote:
Nearly all theistic conceptions of God no matter what the particular sect of theism are statements of a perspective on life. God is emblematic of these conceptions.

Absolutely! I think people pack their entire worldview into gods. Freud called it the "superego", and was quite right that it has a large influence over our lives.

theidiot wrote:
A belief or disbelief in God is not the same as disbelief in toothy fairies, who are simply little flying hot chicks in bikinis, nothing more nothing less, a belief in God is composed of emblematic conceptions, symbolic of a perspective on life. All theistic beliefs no matter of what stripe can be broken down as such.

You've illustrated precisely why it's unlikely that gods exist: we know that we have a tendency to project our emblematic conceptions symbolically.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I agree - the whole arument

I agree - the whole argument by the OP fits in very well with the idea that God is, well, essentially, just an idea, a framework for an attitude to life.

The utility of this kind of 'God' does not depend in any way on the word referring to any actual external reality, just the belief that it refers to some 'transcendent' concept.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:The utility

BobSpence1 wrote:

The utility of this kind of 'God' does not depend in any way on the word referring to any actual external reality, just the belief that it refers to some 'transcendent' concept.

I think I was just surprised because I've never seen someone checkmate themselves so quickly.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:BobSpence1

HisWillness wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

The utility of this kind of 'God' does not depend in any way on the word referring to any actual external reality, just the belief that it refers to some 'transcendent' concept.

I think I was just surprised because I've never seen someone checkmate themselves so quickly.

So, with that sort of God, the OP would be right, there is no point in Atheism, but of course that is not the only God-concept out there.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:The problem

theidiot wrote:

The problem of this notion of belief is that it's not really thought out, or reflective on what these beliefs are composed and dependent of. 

There is a reason why theist infer that God in omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevelent, and that their God is a creator deity, these beliefs arise because a God of purpose and meaning is dependent on these things.

This is an interesting admission.

You are saying that God is attributed several properties (omnipotence, omniscience) and actions (creator of all that is) simply because it's a God of purpose and meaning.

I've usually heard it the other way 'round. Most folks who use this argument start with the necessity of an all-powerful God as creator, and jump to the conclusion that it's also a God of purpose and meaning. The conclusion does not follow from the assumptions, of course, and so that is flawed logic.

Your arrangement makes even less sense. By starting with the illogical assumption (that God exists, and it's a God of purpose and meaning), you necessitate the all-powerful attributes. Your logic is stronger, certainly, as your conclusion is at least derivable from your assumption. But, your assumption is no less irrational.

Quote:

If human existence has inherent sense of purpose and meaning, only that which created life can give it, and if the purpose and meaning is to be sustained and fulfilled regardless of adversary [sic] only that which is all powerful can do so.

"Human existence" has no purpose or meaning. "Purpose" and "meaning" are subjective attributes applicable to individuals, and groups of like-minded individuals. There are groups that form for many different variations on the "purpose" and "meaning." The RRS is one of them. It seems to have been formed for the "purpose" of allowing those of us who derive our meaning in life from rationality. Churches do a similar thing for theists, only without the rationality part.

How do you conclude "only that which is all powerful" can sustain and fullfill purpose and meaning regardless of adversity? Are you saying that people (and animals in general) are incapable of adhering to their morals in times of trouble? 'Cause if you are, brother, you greatly overestimate the power of faith, and underestimate the power of individuals.

Quote:

Beliefs such as love conquers all, that love triumphs in the end such as the beliefs of slaves, and the struggling blacks of the civil right era, in any concrete sense requires a belief in a transcendent meaning and purpose to human existence, and a power that sees it's fulfillment.

Love doesn't conquer all. Love doesn't triumph in the end. I'm not sure where you get the idea that it does, but it doesn't. Sometimes things work out, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the good guy wins, and sometimes the bad guy wins. (And in general, the bad guy usually thinks he's the hero.)

Love is an emotion. As such, it is capable of bringing us (as individuals) great joy. It's also capable of bringing us great sorrow. Love is not a force. It's not something objective, capable of influencing the universe.

Quote:

I never said it is to be handed down from above. The real distinction between a Christian perspective and disbeliever perspective is not that one is handed down from above, but that one perspective is seen as true while all others are false. That the only real way making sense of life is from the perspective of the cross. 

Yes, you did. As soon as you claim that your worldview comes from a belief in God, you are admiting it was "handed down from above." This is a cousin to the argument that atheists can't have a real morality, because morality comes only from God.

The rejection of God is the rejection of a worldview. It is not the endorsement of any particular worldview, simply the  rejection of another.

That doesn't mean that many atheists don't share a particular outlook on life. I think I speak for many here when I say that many of us want a peaceful world in which reason prevails, but not at the cost of coersion or violence. Most of us would like to maximize liberty, while also creating a society that is safe and supportive and provides equal opportunity for all.

I could argue that atheism itself doesn't necessarily beget a worldview, but the worldview begets atheism. That is the worldview of rational empiricism. Other people may start with atheism, and end up believing that the stars guide our life and become astrologers.

Finally, let's consider your leprechaun example. Leprechauns and God have two thing in common: both are supernatural, and there is evidence for neither. Leprechauns are just as emblematic as God, in that they indicate a belief in something outside the natural world, but yet partakes of the natural world. The belief in leprechauns is the belief that magical creatures run around and are responsible for the mysterious things we see in life. This does involve a worldview, just as significant and emblematic as a belief in God.

The belief in God is the same kind of belief as a belief in leprechauns. Replace the pot o' gold with heaven, and the rainbow with this life, and you have the exact same belief. God explains life and gives purpose to it the same way the leprechaun explains rainbows and gives purpose to them. And, there's a promise of a reward at the end of both.

So, no, your argument isn't any stronger than that of the leprechaun, and your worldview is no more significant than that of Darby O'Gill and the Little People.


 

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:I never said

theidiot wrote:

I never said it is to be handed down from above. The real distinction between a Christian perspective and disbeliever perspective is not that one is handed down from above, but that one perspective is seen as true while all others are false. That the only real way making sense of life is from the perspective of the cross.

How is "that one perspective is seen as true while all others are false" a distinction between perspectives? Surely that applies to all religious faiths, even the lack of belief, they each see their perspective as true and all the others false.

You still have to justify why you consider it true. Having good results, even if we could agree that is correct, doesn't makes a belief true, that is not a valid use of the word 'true'.

The testimony of a vast number of people, believers and non-believers, makes your last statement utterly arrogant and unjustifiable.

I personally find the whole crucifiction/salvation story the most insanely perverse and pointless aspect of Christianity. It is is so manifestly derives from the primitive concept of blood sacrifice to appease angry Gods.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:While atheism

theidiot wrote:
While atheism is not a complete worldview, it is an affirmation of a partial one, because a denial of God who is emblematic of a perspective on life, is affirmation of an alternative perspective on it.

A belief or disbelief in God is not the same as disbelief in toothy fairies, who are simply little flying hot chicks in bikinis, nothing more nothing less, a belief in God is composed of emblematic conceptions, symbolic of a perspective on life. All theistic beliefs no matter of what stripe can be broken down as such.

 

You are incorrect. Atheism refers only to one concept, and that is a belief in god. Many different worldviews fall under the umbrella of atheism. Just as your view is different from other people who believe in god, many different people who are atheists similarly have different worldviews.

To say that atheism is a worldview is just faces the same problems as saying theism is a worldview, in that it is an attempt to broaden the word far beyond its actual meaning.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:That the only

theidiot wrote:

That the only real way making sense of life is from the perspective of the cross.

Meaningless rhetoric. I think this is a great example of how your posts lack meaning. You spout off phrases like this as though they were meaningful or deep, but they are empty nonsense. I suppose that in some sense I don't know how to argue against it since I don't know how to argue against meaningless rhetoric. If only you had something of substance to claim here (other than that denying your world view is a world view), then we could have a meaningful discussion.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote: That

Jormungander wrote:

 Meaningless rhetoric. I think this is a great example of how your posts lack meaning. You spout off phrases like this as though they were meaningful or deep, but they are empty nonsense. 

Uhm, I never said it was meaningful or deep? You can argue if it is or if it isn't, but that was never a topic of discussion. You ever heard the expression of looking at life from the bottom of a shot glass? Imagine if i said a certain perspective was to view life from the bottom of a shot glass, does this mean I was claiming that this expression was meaningful or deep?

But to break it down further for you, the Crucifixion, i.e. the cross is the pivotal point of Christianity, whether one be fundamentalist, catholic, or even mainline christian. It's were sin, redemption, forgiveness,  etc... meet, and different sects of Christians might add to this perspective, interpreting it in various way, some of it may be shallow, some of it may be deep. But in the christian worldview, the christian religion, the cross takes center stage. 

I can convey what that perspective means to me, and in within the frame of a literary analysis what the Cross means to the writers of the new testament, and you can argue if find it meaningful, deep, or shallow, but that was never a part of the discussion.

Quote:
I suppose that in some sense I don't know how to argue against

Uhm, thats probably because my use of the term was never intended to be argued against, someone reading what i wrote within it's context might have understood that. 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Jormungander

theidiot wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

 Meaningless rhetoric. I think this is a great example of how your posts lack meaning. You spout off phrases like this as though they were meaningful or deep, but they are empty nonsense. 

Uhm, I never said it was meaningful or deep? You can argue if it is or if it isn't, but that was never a topic of discussion. You ever heard the expression of looking at life from the bottom of a shot glass? Imagine if i said a certain perspective was to view life from the bottom of a shot glass, does this mean I was claiming that this expression was meaningful or deep?

But to break it down further for you, the Crucifixion, i.e. the cross is the pivotal point of Christianity, whether one be fundamentalist, catholic, or even mainline christian. It's were sin, redemption, forgiveness,  etc... meet, and different sects of Christians might add to this perspective, interpreting it in various way, some of it may be shallow, some of it may be deep. But in the christian worldview, the christian religion, the cross takes center stage. 

I can convey what that perspective means to me, and in within the frame of a literary analysis what the Cross means to the writers of the new testament, and you can argue if find it meaningful, deep, or shallow, but that was never a part of the discussion.

Quote:
I suppose that in some sense I don't know how to argue against

Uhm, thats probably because my use of the term was never intended to be argued against, someone reading what i wrote within it's context might have understood that. 

 

The cross is more important? I see, you're a blood cultist and you only came here to preach.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:But to break

theidiot wrote:

But to break it down further for you, the Crucifixion, i.e. the cross is the pivotal point of Christianity, whether one be fundamentalist, catholic, or even mainline christian. 

Well, that's strange. When I was debating with another Christian a while ago, he repeatedly denied that Christians worshipped crucifixes because that would be idol worship. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The cross is

jcgadfly wrote:

The cross is more important? I see, you're a blood cultist and you only came here to preach.

Wtf?

I don't even think this even worthy of a response? But seriously? I don't give two shits if your an atheist, a buddhist, a hindu, or belong to the church of the flying spaghetti monster, so the last thing you'll ever find me doing here is preaching. 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Well,

butterbattle wrote:

Well, that's strange. When I was debating with another Christian a while ago, he repeatedly denied that Christians worshipped crucifixes because that would be idol worship. 

Well, that's strange being that I never said Christian worship crucifixes?

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:jcgadfly

theidiot wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The cross is more important? I see, you're a blood cultist and you only came here to preach.

Wtf?

I don't even think this even worthy of a response? But seriously? I don't give two shits if your an atheist, a buddhist, a hindu, or belong to the church of the flying spaghetti monster, so the last thing you'll ever find me doing here is preaching. 

 

Well, when you talk about how important the Cross is to Christians (are you one?) and say that your points aren't meant to be discussed or argued against, it looks an awful lot like you're preaching.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:butterbattle

theidiot wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Well, that's strange. When I was debating with another Christian a while ago, he repeatedly denied that Christians worshipped crucifixes because that would be idol worship. 

Well, that's strange being that I never said Christian worship crucifixes?

 

So you worship the empty cross?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Well, when

jcgadfly wrote:

Well, when you talk about how important the Cross is to Christians (are you one?) and say that your points aren't meant to be discussed or argued against, it looks an awful lot like you're preaching.

 

Uhm, the only arguments for me claiming in this thread that the Cross is important to christians, is "the cross is not important to Christians".

It's like if i claimed the world is round, and you argued no, the world is populated by several billion people.

But this is fucken ridiculous, but if you want gadfly to make an argument concerning my own theism, where you can ask questions, hear my perspective on my personal belief, u can start a thread (or I'll even start one for you) where you get do just that. But my theism, nor a defense of theism were ever topics of concern in this thread, and were irrelevant discussions for it.

 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:jcgadfly

theidiot wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Well, when you talk about how important the Cross is to Christians (are you one?) and say that your points aren't meant to be discussed or argued against, it looks an awful lot like you're preaching.

 

Uhm, the only arguments for me claiming in this thread that the Cross is important to christians, is "the cross is not important to Christians".

It's like if i claimed the world is round, and you argued no, the world is populated by several billion people.

But this is fucken ridiculous, but if you want gadfly to make an argument concerning my own theism, where you can ask questions, hear my perspective on my personal belief, u can start a thread (or I'll even start one for you) where you get do just that. But my theism, nor a defense of theism were ever topics of concern in this thread, and were irrelevant discussions for it.

 

 

 

 

Whatever, Rev. You keep making your theistic points and claiming that they can't be argued against.

I always thought the resurrection of Christ was the important thing to Christians, not the death tool. The Cross is only meaningful for those Christians who feel they have to bathe in Jesus' blood to belong.

Oh damn, I'm arguing against your point.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Uhm, the only

theidiot wrote:

Uhm, the only arguments for me claiming in this thread that the Cross is important to christians, is "the cross is not important to Christians".

The only place in this thread where you used the words "the cross is not important" is in

theidiot wrote:

The meaning of a painting is not that its an organized slab of paint, the meaning of wedding ring is not that its some piece of metal one attaches to a finger. The meaning of the cross is not the worship of bloody corpse nailed to a tree, but from the perspective of the Gospels is the worship of that which triumphs over misery and despair, over death, and humiliation.  

But you did say

theidiot wrote:

That the only real way making sense of life is from the perspective of the cross.

Both quotes do seem to strongly imply that "the Cross is important to christians".

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:There is a

theidiot wrote:

There is a reason why theist infer that God in omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevelent, and that their God is a creator deity, these beliefs arise because a God of purpose and meaning is dependent on these things. If human existence has inherent sense of purpose and meaning, only that which created life can give it, and if the purpose and meaning is to be sustained and fulfilled regardless of adversary only that which is all powerful can do so.

Nigel addressed this, but I feel compelled to reiterate.  You seem here to have reverse-engineered your god based on your desire for your existence to have "inherent purpose and meaning".

theidiot wrote:

Quote:
That denial of God is in fact a statement affirming a particular view of life. A denial of a worldview is an affirmation of another one. A denial of a world with a transcendent purpose and meaning, is an affirmation of a worldview in which life has no transcendent purpose and meaning.

Quote:
You say that as if it's a bad thing.

No, I don't say it as a bad thing, It's criticism of atheist who claim that atheism is not a worldview, not even a partial one, not that the worldview is necessarily a bad one.

Well the title of your thread is "Does atheism make sense".   So please address whether a "worldview in which life has no transcendent purpose and meaning" makes sense or not.

theidiot wrote:

That the only real way making sense of life is from the perspective of the cross.

I'm somewhat confused with the course this topic.  It seemed originally you were addressing atheism versus a belief in god in a broad sense, identifying no particular god.  Then suddenly you began to speak specifically of christianity.  I sense that you are making a false dichotomy -- between atheism and christianity.  Either stick to arguing for a belief in god in general, or amend your topic to "Does it make sense not to be christian?", and group together the non-christians (atheist and believer alike).

As far as you being all hung up on the cross, I invite you to advance your argument in these threads:

What is the Role of the Crucifixion in Christianity?

Would You Go On The Cross

theidiot wrote:

Quote:
Mainline by whose standards?

By the standard the constitutes the branches of mainline christianity.

Unclear to me how that standard is set.  One more thread invite for you:  What is "real" christianity?


theidiot wrote:

Quote:
Forcing a 'worldview' upon your god concept does not push it any closer within the bounds of credibility.

No one is forcing a worldview upon a God concept, a God concept is a worldview, as God is representative of that view. Only if one argues that my view of life is false, can one rid me of belief. 

You are forcing a worldview upon it.  You are saying the reason god and the tooth fairy aren't the same thing is because the concept of god includes a "worldview".   So in effect you are saying that you need only affix a worldview to something which doesn't make sense, and suddenly it will make sense.  Since you've specified christianity unsolicited, let's use that as an example.   A belief in a magic-performing man who rises from the dead is no less nonsensical than a fairy who leaves coins under your pillow when your teeth fall out.   You insist that the former scenario makes sense once you force "transcendent purpose and meaning" upon it. 

EDIT:  link fix

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:theidiot

BobSpence1 wrote:

theidiot wrote:

Uhm, the only arguments for me claiming in this thread that the Cross is important to Christians, is "the cross is not important to Christians".

The only place in this thread where you used the words "the cross is not important" is in

Both quotes do seem to strongly imply that "the Cross is important to Christians".

 

Yes, you're right I did strongly imply that the "Cross is important to Christians.", and look at the first part of what you quoted from me:  "the only arguments for me claiming in this thread that the Cross is important to Christians......"so what do you know?

But maybe what I was saying here was not worded well enough, and that can be why you seem confused.

 

Let's say, I claim the sky is yellow, so then i go on to say that "the only argument for me claiming in this thread that the Sky is yellow, is that the sky is not yellow." Do you see my point now?

Meaning my argument is the sky is yellow, and the only argument available against such a claim that another person can make is that the sky is not yellow, and that claims such as birds fly south for the winter, are irrelevant to my argument, to what i claimed. 

 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:BobSpence1

theidiot wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

theidiot wrote:

Uhm, the only arguments for me claiming in this thread that the Cross is important to Christians, is "the cross is not important to Christians".

The only place in this thread where you used the words "the cross is not important" is in

Both quotes do seem to strongly imply that "the Cross is important to Christians".

 

Yes, you're right I did strongly imply that the "Cross is important to Christians.", and look at the first part of what you quoted from me:  "the only arguments for me claiming in this thread that the Cross is important to Christians......"so what do you know?

But maybe what I was saying here was not worded well enough, and that can be why you seem confused.

I am not confused - it is you who appear confused, based on your words, which aren't even consistent from one post to another. I am only pointing this out to you.

Quote:

Let's say, I claim the sky is yellow, so then i go on to say that "the only argument for me claiming in this thread that the Sky is yellow, is that the sky is not yellow." Do you see my point now?

Meaning my argument is the sky is yellow, and the only argument available against such a claim that another person can make is that the sky is not yellow, and that claims such as birds fly south for the winter, are irrelevant to my argument, to what i claimed. 

"Uhm, the only arguments for me claiming in this thread that the Cross is important to Christians, is "the cross is not important to Christians" is not a correct statement. No-one was actually arguing that you made that claim, they simply based their responses on statements such as the two I quoted, which effectively do incorporate that sentiment.

Then you come back with this pointless word-play... you are at least honest and accurate in your choice of forum name here.

With regard to your OP, you say

Quote:

There statement on their perspective on life is that life has an inherent design and order, an atheist who denies this is affirming a perspective on life in which life has no inherent design and order. They are affirming certain parts of a worldview, by their disbelief in God.

Atheists do not necessarily deny that "life has inherent design and order", rather we believe that such characteristics can and do arise from natural processes and principles, chiefly the Darwinian algorithm of variation and selective pressures from a specific environment which sorts out the most successful reproducers. Order is inherent in the regularities of the structure and attributes of matter at the fundamental level.

So you are also inaccurate here.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Well, that's

theidiot wrote:

Well, that's strange being that I never said Christian worship crucifixes?

Quote:
Uhm, the only arguments for me claiming in this thread that the Cross is important to christians, is "the cross is not important to Christians".

Quote:
But to break it down further for you, the Crucifixion, i.e. the cross is the pivotal point of Christianity, whether one be fundamentalist, catholic, or even mainline christian. It's were sin, redemption, forgiveness,  etc... meet, and different sects of Christians might add to this perspective, interpreting it in various way, some of it may be shallow, some of it may be deep. But in the christian worldview, the christian religion, the cross takes center stage.

Quote:
That the only real way making sense of life is from the perspective of the cross.
 

Huh? I'm confused. 

Define: worship.

Do Christians worship the crucifix? Yes or no.

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

 

Quote:
That the only real way making sense of life is from the perspective of the cross.
 

 

Huh? I'm confused. 

Define: worship.

Do Christians worship the crucifix? Yes or no.

 

 

 ......Cross is important to Christians....

 

...... the cross is the pivotal point of Christianity.....

 

tell me how you take these statement to mean worship of the crucifix?

 

these statement would also be true....

 

Moses is an important character of the Abrahamic-faiths

 

The escape from pharaoh in the exodus story is a pivotal point in Judaism.

 

Neither jews, muslims, or christians worship Moses, nor do jews "worship" the exodus story.

 

And secondly, when I say the cross, this is not a term constrained to mean the literal crucifixion, but all that the symbol of the cross symbolizes, i.e. redemption of sin, God's love for humanity, Christ overcoming the world, etc...., those lacking in inferential capacity might not understand this.

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: No-one

BobSpence1 wrote:

 No-one was actually arguing that you made that claim, they simply based their responses on statements such as the two I quoted, which effectively do incorporate that sentiment.

 

Uhm, let's see a fellow argued that me saying the cross is important to Christian's, means that the Christians worship the crucifix, as if anything we find important, means that we worship these things as well.

 

They may have based there response to that, but they made incorrect inferences from it.

 

Quote:
Then you come back with this pointless word-play...

uhm, that was perhaps because I didn't understand what your point was, and I perhaps did assume incorrectly of what you meant. 

Quote:
you are at least honest and accurate in your choice of forum name here.

Well, thank you, kind of you to be rude. 

Quote:

Atheists do not necessarily deny that "life has inherent design and order", rather we believe that such characteristics can and do arise from natural processes and principles, chiefly the Darwinian algorithm of variation and selective pressures from a specific environment which sorts out the most successful reproducers. Order is inherent in the regularities of the structure and attributes of matter at the fundamental level.

So you are also inaccurate here.

Yes, a few people have pointed this out to me, and I was incorrect, at least in how i attempted to express my point. I agree, atheist don't necessarily deny that life has a sense of design and order to it, but this is distinct between how theist see l sense of design and order in life, in that some theist see a sense of design and order that implies a designer, as if their is an intelligence behind it. 

 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
I see that individuals here

I see that individuals here don't seem to be getting my point, and perhaps that may even be my fault, and it seem that no matter how many times i protest against it, individuals here keep bringing this back to my theism, and my beliefs, when they were never on the table to be begin with. I was making an argument that i would say if I was atheist would be the same. 

But perhaps to put things into perspective,  I should put my beliefs on the table, my theism on the line for examination.

I'm a late theist, who came to believe in my late 20s, not from some sort of revival at a church somewhere, or from the guidance of a charismatic preacher. I come to belief, for the same reason my pentecostal mother believes, as the verse in psalms goes "weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning", in a sense of hope that prevails all other things, that a way can be made out of no way.

I accept Christ as the Son of God, that as John goes God is love, and it was that love brought to perfection among us. That Christ embodies all that God can ever represent and mean, as the light of human existence, and the source for my mother's profound sense of hope and mine. 

And I invite you all to ask question, but be respectful and I'll return the favor, and show me how my belief in God is similar to a belief in the tooth fairy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
I see that you didn't

I see that you didn't respond to my last post.


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:I see that

zarathustra wrote:

I see that you didn't respond to my last post.

 

Actually, i did start to write a response, in fact I still have it saved as a text file on my computer, but I had to leave and never finished it, than I thought about going back to it, but I realized that in effect that I was going to be dealing with the same misunderstanding over and over again, unless i altered how I was going about making my points. 

But if you would like, I'll pm you what i have of your response, but I don't think it serves me any good to post it here, and continue in that style of discussion. 

But I will address one point here, when I ask does atheism make sense, I mean it in the way a non-believer like Noam Chomsky would put it: "Like everyone participating I'm what's called here a "secular atheist," except that I can't even call myself an "atheist" because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny."

If Chomsky is right in saying that the term is not clear enough in what exactly it's denying, and the dilemma arising because of a ill defined notion of God, and perhaps even a notion of God that is unrecognizable even to those who believe in a God 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


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

theidiot wrote:

And I invite you all to ask question, but be respectful and I'll return the favor, and show me how my belief in God is similar to a belief in the tooth fairy.

Similar? Easy. I can't produce a Tooth Fairy, either.

Both are described in stories, both are permanently invisible, both are said to do things they don't actually do (the Tooth Fairy leaves money for kids isn't so much a lie as it is a cute story), both have such vague and nebulous descriptions that the depictions of them will all be different (but they'll all be white, strangely) ...

I'm sure I could think of more given time. But neither one shows up in real life, so that's pretty important in the comparison.

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:I'm a late

theidiot wrote:

I'm a late theist, who came to believe in my late 20s, not from some sort of revival at a church somewhere, or from the guidance of a charismatic preacher. I come to belief, for the same reason my pentecostal mother believes, as the verse in psalms goes "weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning", in a sense of hope that prevails all other things, that a way can be made out of no way.

So what are you saying, you picked up your belief from your mom?

So are you saying because you know that someday you will die you want to believe there is something more?

I say this because you said, "in a sense of hope that prevails all other things, that a way can be made out of no way" which implies life leads to death and the end. So you must desire for there to be more.

theidiot wrote:

I accept Christ as the Son of God, that as John goes God is love, and it was that love brought to perfection among us. That Christ embodies all that God can ever represent and mean, as the light of human existence, and the source for my mother's profound sense of hope and mine.

The god you say is love had a history that didn't show he cared much for those not Jews at one point. When he supposedly flooded all the world he would have killed young babies that had no concept of either evil or the god. In fact your God has never shown that in ancient times he ever presented himself or his message to millions around the world except for the few hundreds of thousands in Palestine. This doesn't sound like he was all that loving towards all of his created humans. Show me where he had prophets in China, Japan, South America, or India in 1000 BCE or even right after Jesus was supposed to be giving it all up to save everyone.

theidiot wrote:

And I invite you all to ask question, but be respectful and I'll return the favor, and show me how my belief in God is similar to a belief in the tooth fairy.

   

                                             

Characteristics                       tooth fairies*                    God

Invisible                                    yes                                 yes

no proof                                    yes                                 yes

accepted on faith                      yes                                 yes

Magical                                      yes                                 yes

Photos                                       no                                   no

Larry King Interview                  no                                   no

Cover of Rolling Stone                ?                                     no

  

 *Not the tooth fairies from Hellboy 2

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:theidiot

HisWillness wrote:

theidiot wrote:

And I invite you all to ask question, but be respectful and I'll return the favor, and show me how my belief in God is similar to a belief in the tooth fairy.

Similar? Easy. I can't produce a Tooth Fairy, either.

Both are described in stories, both are permanently invisible, both are said to do things they don't actually do (the Tooth Fairy leaves money for kids isn't so much a lie as it is a cute story), both have such vague and nebulous descriptions that the depictions of them will all be different (but they'll all be white, strangely) ...

I'm sure I could think of more given time. But neither one shows up in real life, so that's pretty important in the comparison.

Notice I didn't ask you how you believed God was like the tooth fairy, but how "my belief" in God, is no different than a "belief in the truth fairy". The weight of basis for believing is shortly summarized in the previous post, tell me where in there you find a belief similar to that of a tooth fairy? 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:So

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So what are you saying, you picked up your belief from your mom?

No I didn't pick up my beliefs from my mother. She's a simple woman, an immigrant, it's not from her ever speaking to me about her faith, or her having a heart to heart with me about believing. Yet her profound sense of hope , in a life quite void of it, leaves an indelible mark on me. 

Quote:
So are you saying because you know that someday you will die you want to believe there is something more?

Well, I've never been all that afraid of death, even when I didn't believe. Someone once pulled out a gun on me, and i just shrugged my shoulders and told him to shoot, life after my literal death has no real allure to me. Even if there were to be nothing waiting for me after the grave, I would still believe.

The atheist who hasn't reflected much, whose exposure to religion barely gets past TBN, and televangelist never get this point. A belief in making a way out of no way, is from the word of Rev. King, the beliefs of blacks during the civil rights movement, and slaves. It's a belief that there is still hope, even when every other card says differently. For my mother it's a belief in a hope, that doesn't allow her to  drown in her suffering and toils, and allows her to strive on, that the efforts she makes in life are not done in futility. The life is not just  a cross of misery, but a hope that overcomes it. 

Many secularist try to peddle to me hope, usually they've lived shallow lives, of hope not tested, and hope that can barely stand a leg exposed to those who need it. They tell me to hope in science, hope in humanity, hope in progress, the shallows hopes of those living in too much abundance to realize it. Like my mother I can only find hope in a narrative view of human existence, that all things are under the will of a will and promise, and without such hope, there is nothing to hope in at all.

Quote:
I say this because you said, "in a sense of hope that prevails all other things, that a way can be made out of no way" which implies life leads to death and the end. So you must desire for there to be more.

I would like you to reflect or where those words come from, and I want to see if you can ponder it context of what it meant from him, and his movement, and followers:

"When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King. Jr.

Quote:
The god you say is love had a history that didn't show he cared much for those not Jews at one point. When he supposedly flooded all the world he would have killed young babies that had no concept of either evil or the god. In fact your God has never shown that in ancient times he ever presented himself or his message to millions around the world except for the few hundreds of thousands in Palestine. This doesn't sound like he was all that loving towards all of his created humans. Show me where he had prophets in China, Japan, South America, or India in 1000 BCE or even right after Jesus was supposed to be giving it all up to save everyone.

Ah yes, a common bug. When John writes God is love, he's not saying God is love according to the narrative of Genesis or whatever else, he is saying God is love, in what is revealed in the person of Jesus. As Paul writes love is the highest of all things, even higher than faith itself, in that whatever we envision God to be, Love is God. 

To break it down for you, in the context of my beliefs. Love for me like Paul and John is the highest of all things, that love can and will prevail, and true love is embodied in the person of Christ. In the moral of the gospel story, "if you do not love your dead, and if you love they'll kill you. "

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Notice I

theidiot wrote:
Notice I didn't ask you how you believed God was like the tooth fairy, but how "my belief" in God, is no different than a "belief in the truth fairy". The weight of basis for believing is shortly summarized in the previous post, tell me where in there you find a belief similar to that of a tooth fairy? 

Belief in god and the tooth fairy are meant to bring comfort.

The tooth fairy brings a small monetary reward for the sometimes frightening, always uncomfortable loss of a pre-adult tooth. It's an exercise in faith: The child believes in the idea, and places the tooth under their pillow in order to reap the reward. It's a small comfort.

God, similar to the tooth fairy except in scale, offers comfort as well. An afterlife in a paradise for the good, justice in the punishment of evil people, protection in the current life, a personally fulfilling reason for strife in one's life, etc. The exercise of faith is more complex: Prayer, church-going, etc.  A far, far greater comfort that the Tooth Fairy.

The primary difference between the two faiths is, it is expected that belief in the tooth fairy will eventually wane, and not just because one eventually runs out of pre-adult teeth.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote: Actually, i

theidiot wrote:
 

Actually, i did start to write a response, in fact I still have it saved as a text file on my computer, but I had to leave and never finished it, than I thought about going back to it, but I realized that in effect that I was going to be dealing with the same misunderstanding over and over again, unless i altered how I was going about making my points. 

But if you would like, I'll pm you what i have of your response, but I don't think it serves me any good to post it here, and continue in that style of discussion.

I think you ought to post it here for all to see.  You say we're not getting your point.  Let's see if you' got mine.

As far as putting your beliefs on the table, your theism on the line:  I provided you with a few links to existing topics where you can do exactly that. 


 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
theidiot

theidiot wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So what are you saying, you picked up your belief from your mom?

No I didn't pick up my beliefs from my mother. She's a simple woman, an immigrant, it's not from her ever speaking to me about her faith, or her having a heart to heart with me about believing. Yet her profound sense of hope , in a life quite void of it, leaves an indelible mark on me. 

Quote:
So are you saying because you know that someday you will die you want to believe there is something more?

Well, I've never been all that afraid of death, even when I didn't believe. Someone once pulled out a gun on me, and i just shrugged my shoulders and told him to shoot, life after my literal death has no real allure to me. Even if there were to be nothing waiting for me after the grave, I would still believe.

Death is a part of life though one should not actively seek it. 

Explain why if there is no afterlife why you'd bother with a belief in such a god. The Jews of the OT were generally of such a view as well where Sheol was their destination at best. 

theidiot wrote:

The atheist who hasn't reflected much, whose exposure to religion barely gets past TBN, and televangelist never get this point. A belief in making a way out of no way, is from the word of Rev. King, the beliefs of blacks during the civil rights movement, and slaves. It's a belief that there is still hope, even when every other card says differently. For my mother it's a belief in a hope, that doesn't allow her to  drown in her suffering and toils, and allows her to strive on, that the efforts she makes in life are not done in futility. The life is not just  a cross of misery, but a hope that overcomes it.

My name alone should have given you a clue I had a religious past as I had a very religious upbringing including very active involvement in the church. I studied religion and theology for many years far beyond the TV beggars on CBN and PTL.

The reason I asked what I did was how you presented the quote from King as it made me think you had hope for an afterlife for whatever reason or you fear death and see through the word (or Jesus) hope for salvation. I call this substitution of one crutch for another or dependency.

I lived through the time of the civil rights movement and the evil war of Viet Nam which killed many of my friends only to see those that survived receive ingratitude as thanks.

theidiot wrote:

Many secularist try to peddle to me hope, usually they've lived shallow lives, of hope not tested, and hope that can barely stand a leg exposed to those who need it. They tell me to hope in science, hope in humanity, hope in progress, the shallows hopes of those living in too much abundance to realize it. Like my mother I can only find hope in a narrative view of human existence, that all things are under the will of a will and promise, and without such hope, there is nothing to hope in at all.

I don't care what you believe or hope it's your business but attempting to reach out to atheists with the "word" or to implement concepts of your belief in society will draw my interest. Believe whatever you'd like but don't think for a minute the environment is like it once was where such challenges to freedoms go without comment. Unlike you I remember money without God on it and a pledge without "one nation under god". Thanks to fear of communism we eroded our freedoms. Thanks to fear of terrorism we have done it again with the Patriot Act. You have no idea what the cold war was like nor the time of civil unrest. The whole point of equality was all people regardless of race  or beliefs were to be treated the same in a manner not considering such differences. Yet today Christians want to implement the rule of Christ on all. As far as I'm concerned such action deserves to be fought in all ways possible.

Shallow lives as you mention from my perspective applies more to you, perhaps you should look in the mirror because you sound like a young person spouting idealism without any real world experience. I do know many believers with such experience. I have a friend that is a nationally known evangelical singer and a Pentecostal like you say you are.

theidiot wrote:

Quote:
The god you say is love had a history that didn't show he cared much for those not Jews at one point. When he supposedly flooded all the world he would have killed young babies that had no concept of either evil or the god. In fact your God has never shown that in ancient times he ever presented himself or his message to millions around the world except for the few hundreds of thousands in Palestine. This doesn't sound like he was all that loving towards all of his created humans. Show me where he had prophets in China, Japan, South America, or India in 1000 BCE or even right after Jesus was supposed to be giving it all up to save everyone.

Ah yes, a common bug. When John writes God is love, he's not saying God is love according to the narrative of Genesis or whatever else, he is saying God is love, in what is revealed in the person of Jesus. As Paul writes love is the highest of all things, even higher than faith itself, in that whatever we envision God to be, Love is God. 

To break it down for you, in the context of my beliefs. Love for me like Paul and John is the highest of all things, that love can and will prevail, and true love is embodied in the person of Christ. In the moral of the gospel story, "if you do not love your dead, and if you love they'll kill you. " 

I hold people to be of the most importance whether you call it love or not matters little. 

You have Paul's outlook more than the gist of the gospels. I don't know why you concentrate on if you love they will kill you. Jesus says 2 things.

1- Love your god with all your heart.

2- Love your neighbor as yourself.

These 2 things are what he says are the most important. In places he talks how they will be persecuted because of him but this doesn't mean that if you love you are killed. Rebels are persecuted all the time and Jesus and his followers were rebels against Rome at least. Whether Jesus was a product of fiction or a morphed depiction of events does not support the god of mythology called Yahweh into the real world.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


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

theidiot wrote:

Notice I didn't ask you how you believed God was like the tooth fairy, but how "my belief" in God, is no different than a "belief in the truth fairy". The weight of basis for believing is shortly summarized in the previous post, tell me where in there you find a belief similar to that of a tooth fairy? 

Oh. Then the only difference is that you're emotionally invested in the belief in God, and not in the tooth fairy. That's all.

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
theidiot wrote:But I will

theidiot wrote:

But I will address one point here, when I ask does atheism make sense, I mean it in the way a non-believer like Noam Chomsky would put it: "Like everyone participating I'm what's called here a "secular atheist," except that I can't even call myself an "atheist" because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny."

If Chomsky is right in saying that the term is not clear enough in what exactly it's denying, and the dilemma arising because of a ill defined notion of God, and perhaps even a notion of God that is unrecognizable even to those who believe in a God 

It's safe to say that Chomsky IS pointing out that even believers wouldn't be able to tell you specifically what they were busy believing in, short of "God", or "Allah", or whatever.

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


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:theidiot

JillSwift wrote:

theidiot wrote:
Notice I didn't ask you how you believed God was like the tooth fairy, but how "my belief" in God, is no different than a "belief in the truth fairy". The weight of basis for believing is shortly summarized in the previous post, tell me where in there you find a belief similar to that of a tooth fairy? 

Belief in god and the tooth fairy are meant to bring comfort.

The tooth fairy brings a small monetary reward for the sometimes frightening, always uncomfortable loss of a pre-adult tooth. It's an exercise in faith: The child believes in the idea, and places the tooth under their pillow in order to reap the reward. It's a small comfort.

Ah, yes, let's paint your dilemma. In your example, the child is not so much believing in the tooth fairy, but believes that if he places his tooth under his pillow it will bring a small monetary reward. And this may in fact be true, he may have seen his sibling do so with their tooth and yield the same thing. Based on what you claimed, I can just tell my child without ever mentioning the tooth fairy, that if they place their lost tooth under their pillow, that they'll find a quarter in place of it, in the morning. 

You're logic implies that my child believes in the tooth fairy, when in fact he doesn't. My child only believes in the reward, and in may in fact be true that it is achievable, and you've only demonstrated that my God beliefs are like such, and not like a belief in a tooth fairy.  

Fannie Lou Hamer, after being beaten savagely by the police, "almost to the point of death", didn't lose hope in the civil rights movement she fought so valiantly for, that equality for blacks was achievable, even when the cruelty of men, said otherwise, when science, education, liberal idealism all failed to provide such hope, even when it appeared that there was no way, that a way was still possible.

Would you liken the beliefs here of such individuals, from Rev. King, to Mrs. Hamer to that of a belief in a tooth fairy? If not, how do you distinguish there beliefs here, from my beliefs that you do liken to a belief in a tooth fairy?

If you do liken them to a belief in a tooth fairy, how would you seperate them from those liberal beliefs, of hope in education and the american creed to overcome human prejudice, and racism?--hopes that Mr. King, and Mrs. Hamer did not share, and that i find delusional.

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Explain why if there is no afterlife why you'd bother with a belief in such a god. The Jews of the OT were generally of such a view as well where Sheol was their destination at best. 

The reason I asked what I did was how you presented the quote from King as it made me think you had hope for an afterlife for whatever reason or you fear death and see through the word (or Jesus) hope for salvation. I call this substitution of one crutch for another or dependency.

This is odd, you mean when you read that King quote, you found it to be peddling of afterlife ambitions? Is that what you drew from your analysis  of the quote? The odd thing is, you claimed the Jews of the OT were lacking in their afterlife ambitions as well, but they were also a very hopeful people. My sense of hope is no different than theirs or Rev. Kings, and I beg you to read his quote again, and return and tell me what sort of hope is King speaking of? Where is he saying a way out of no way will be made? In an afterlife, or in this life?

Quote:
You have Paul's outlook more than the gist of the gospels. I don't know why you concentrate on if you love they will kill you. Jesus says 2 things.

1- Love your god with all your heart.

2- Love your neighbor as yourself.

These 2 things are what he says are the most important. In places he talks how they will be persecuted because of him but this doesn't mean that if you love you are killed.

 

Jesus proclaims that his followers are known by their love, that his followers are to love not only their neighbors as even pagans do, but their oppressors as well. Jesus claims that nothing is done for him, unless it's done for others, what you did not do for the least of them you did not do for Christ, without reconciling yourself with your brother, you cannot be reconciled with God. Jesus in the gospels sees himself as the community, to be persecuted out of love for him, can only mean being persecuted out of love for others. When the man asked Jesus for what is the greatest commandment, he asked only for one, but Jesus told him two, claiming that the one is like the other, and revealing that they cannot be separated. 

He tells his followers that they will be persecuted, and suffer for the sake of living and sharing his message, he doesn't promise them a walk in the park. That to love in the christian sense is to truly love, and without it we are dead, and with it, others seek our death. 

In the Christian Gospels the cross just doesn't await Jesus, but his followers as well. 

 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
theidiot

theidiot wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Explain why if there is no afterlife why you'd bother with a belief in such a god. The Jews of the OT were generally of such a view as well where Sheol was their destination at best. 

The reason I asked what I did was how you presented the quote from King as it made me think you had hope for an afterlife for whatever reason or you fear death and see through the word (or Jesus) hope for salvation. I call this substitution of one crutch for another or dependency.

This is odd, you mean when you read that King quote, you found it to be peddling of afterlife ambitions? Is that what you drew from your analysis  of the quote? The odd thing is, you claimed the Jews of the OT were lacking in their afterlife ambitions as well, but they were also a very hopeful people. My sense of hope is no different than theirs or Rev. Kings, and I beg you to read his quote again, and return and tell me what sort of hope is King speaking of? Where is he saying a way out of no way will be made? In an afterlife, or in this life?

There's nothing at all odd that I interpreted your out of context use of a quote from King this way.

In your original use you combined an out of context quote from Psalms,  "weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning" and King "in a sense of hope that prevails all other things, that a way can be made out of no way."

I saw this as your sorrow for death followed by salvation in the Psalms quote as well it was your ultimate hope that a senseless life would be a way to more.

I know in context what King means but that's not what you did.

theidiot wrote:

Quote:
You have Paul's outlook more than the gist of the gospels. I don't know why you concentrate on if you love they will kill you. Jesus says 2 things.

1- Love your god with all your heart.

2- Love your neighbor as yourself.

These 2 things are what he says are the most important. In places he talks how they will be persecuted because of him but this doesn't mean that if you love you are killed.

 

Jesus proclaims that his followers are known by their love, that his followers are to love not only their neighbors as even pagans do, but their oppressors as well. Jesus claims that nothing is done for him, unless it's done for others, what you did not do for the least of them you did not do for Christ, without reconciling yourself with your brother, you cannot be reconciled with God. Jesus in the gospels sees himself as the community, to be persecuted out of love for him, can only mean being persecuted out of love for others. When the man asked Jesus for what is the greatest commandment, he asked only for one, but Jesus told him two, claiming that the one is like the other, and revealing that they cannot be separated. 

He tells his followers that they will be persecuted, and suffer for the sake of living and sharing his message, he doesn't promise them a walk in the park. That to love in the christian sense is to truly love, and without it we are dead, and with it, others seek our death. 

In the Christian Gospels the cross just doesn't await Jesus, but his followers as well.  

 

Dude, I know full well what it says about loving all  and doing for others no need to play preacher here. 

Christians are generally not persecuted today except when they get out of control in Islamic countries. A Christian is less likely to be persecuted in Saudi Arabia than an infidel non-believer such as me. They consider you to be a person of little faith while I'm someone they can freely exterminate in the name of Allah the god of Abe. As to the past, if you want to open that book there is supposed believer persecuting supposed believer for minor differences dating to the beginning of the Jesus and Christian cult. 

If you are trying to paint Christianity today as like the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s you are using a poor analogy as non-believers are more like the blacks being discriminated against then your mainstream Christian believers.

You OP was allegedly about Does Atheism Make Sense but so far you have done zilch to support a challenge to non-belief.

Your claim is there is a sky daddy that sent his son (part of himself) to die for those he made with free choices to placate himself for having an attitude about those that he made that he gave a free choice to make. So when the men he made pick a choice that wasn't what he wanted though he knew already they would he's disappointed and hangs the blame on all throughout all future generations. Unless they bathe in the blood of himself that was killed to placate his miffed feudal lord ego they all will be tossed as chaff into the pit of fire.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Dude, I know full well what it says about loving all  and doing for others no need to play preacher here. 

Christians are generally not persecuted today except when they get out of control in Islamic countries. A Christian is less likely to be persecuted in Saudi Arabia than an infidel non-believer such as me. They consider you to be a person of little faith while I'm someone they can freely exterminate in the name of Allah the god of Abe. As to the past, if you want to open that book there is supposed believer persecuting supposed believer for minor differences dating to the beginning of the Jesus and Christian cult. 

If you are trying to paint Christianity today as like the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s you are using a poor analogy as non-believers are more like the blacks being discriminated against then your mainstream Christian believers.

 

Hold your horses buddy, I get irate when hearing someone run off at the mouth from their theastic biases, leading them to make silly and unwarranted conclusions about my theism, and my argument. 

You claimed that my claim of the moral of the gospel story being "if you do not love you're dead, and if you love they'll kill you (Herbert Mccabe)." is not a warranted reading of the text, and all I did in my previous post is to show you that it was. 

There was nothing in here about the current state of Christians today, if theist are more persecuted than atheist or whatever else have you, or if I find myself more persecuted than you do or whatever else have you. I didn't make a poor analogy, in fact i didn't even make an analogy. 

And I ask that you kindly apologize for the above unwarranted tirade, or at least refrain from such hot-headed, misguided inferences from my posts. 

Quote:
You OP was allegedly about Does Atheism Make Sense but so far you have done zilch to support a challenge to non-belief.

Uhm....ok...you're right i have done zilch to support a challenge to non-belief, and you know why that is? Because I have never been trying to create a challenge for non-belief? I never started this thread with the intention of winning converts, nor can i see how anything in what I posted can be reasonably interpreted as such. 

It's kind of sickening that every time you post in these forums, you have to go over the same tired shit, but I'm hoping you're reasoned enough to see your error, and correct it henceforth. Can i at least expect that much from you? 

Quote:
Your claim is there is a sky daddy that sent his son (part of himself) to die for those he made with free choices to placate himself for having an attitude about those that he made that he gave a free choice to make. So when the men he made pick a choice that wasn't what he wanted though he knew already they would he's disappointed and hangs the blame on all throughout all future generations. Unless they bathe in the blood of himself that was killed to placate his miffed feudal lord ego they all will be tossed as chaff into the pit of fire.

Uhm really? Is that my claim, that's fucking news to me! Is there anywhere in my post that I claimed this? In fact anywhere in this forum that I claimed this? Stick to claims that I do make. 

Same tired shit, gets annoying real quick. 

 

Quote:
There's nothing at all odd that I interpreted your out of context use of a quote from King this way.

In your original use you combined an out of context quote from Psalms,  "weeping may endure for a night but joy cometh in the morning" and King "in a sense of hope that prevails all other things, that a way can be made out of no way."

I saw this as your sorrow for death followed by salvation in the Psalms quote as well it was your ultimate hope that a senseless life would be a way to more.

I know in context what King means but that's not what you did.

Well, friend at least you have one remark in your post, that was relevant to my previous one. 

So somewhere from these two things, you inferred that I was speaking about hopes for an afterlife? You claimed that the Jews of the OT didn't really have afterlife hopes, yet some how the Psalms is about afterlife hopes? afterlife comfort?

You claimed I was speaking of afterlife ambitions from my use of Psalms, and from the quote from King. You already rejected the King quote as implying afterlife ambitions,  and you claimed earlier that the OT jews didn't have such beliefs? Doesn't leave you much of a leg to stand on does it?

You asked me why would I believe in God if it isn't because of afterlife ambitions? What sort of hope if it isn't life after death, that sustains my faith? And I told you for the same reasons the OT Jews, like the Psalmist believed, for the same reason some individuals Like Rev. King, and Fannie Lou Hamer believed, and I provided you a quote from Rev. King, to contemplate what sort of hope it is that leads me to believe. 

And I ask you again, even if you understand so well, to explain to me what you think King is speaking of? Can you do that for me?

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Ah, yes,

theidiot wrote:
Ah, yes, let's paint your dilemma. In your example, the child is not so much believing in the tooth fairy, but believes that if he places his tooth under his pillow it will bring a small monetary reward. And this may in fact be true, he may have seen his sibling do so with their tooth and yield the same thing. Based on what you claimed, I can just tell my child without ever mentioning the tooth fairy, that if they place their lost tooth under their pillow, that they'll find a quarter in place of it, in the morning. 

You're logic implies that my child believes in the tooth fairy, when in fact he doesn't. My child only believes in the reward, and in may in fact be true that it is achievable, and you've only demonstrated that my God beliefs are like such, and not like a belief in a tooth fairy. 

You asked how belief in god was like the belief in the tooth fairy. So bringing in the idea of children who do not believe in the tooth fairy is a red herring.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:You asked

JillSwift wrote:

You asked how belief in god was like the belief in the tooth fairy. So bringing in the idea of children who do not believe in the tooth fairy is a red herring.

Uhm..no you just didn't think too much about what you wrote. 

What you wrote is how my belief in God is similar to a belief in children believing in a reward for losing their tooth, your analysis and comparison centered around this. You left the tooth fairy as a irrelevant factor in this belief, on the side lines so to say. Are they comforted by the tooth fairy? or the quarter under their pillow?

If we could extrapolate your methodology, using your logic to determine what beliefs are similar to a belief in the toothy fairy, then a belief of children who believe their father will place a quarter under their pillow if they lose a tooth, would be deemed as similar to a belief in the tooth fairy as well (so would secular liberal beliefs of the power of education, or rationalism etc..). If you don't think this is so, then I challenge you to use your previously mentioned argument, tell me how you would distinguish the two?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Uhm..no you

theidiot wrote:
Uhm..no you just didn't think too much about what you wrote. 

What you wrote is how my belief in God is similar to a belief in children believing in a reward for losing their tooth, your analysis and comparison centered around this. You left the tooth fairy as a irrelevant factor in this belief, on the side lines so to say. Are they comforted by the tooth fairy? or the quarter under their pillow?

False dichotomy. The children are comforted by the tooth fairy leaving the reward.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Jill Swift wrote:False

Jill Swift wrote:

False dichotomy. The children are comforted by the tooth fairy leaving the reward.

Well, Jill it doesn't interest me to respond to people who ignore the bulk of my post, and the requests I had for them, so when you figure out something more substantive to say than a sentence and half, and can provide something a bit more thought out, you let me know. 

Other than that, godspeed. 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Well, Jill it

 

Quote:
Well, Jill it doesn't interest me to respond to people who ignore the bulk of my post, and the requests I had for them, so when you figure out something more substantive to say than a sentence and half, and can provide something a bit more thought out, you let me know.

You may not know this, but you take six paragraphs to say what can be said in a sentence, so one or two sentences is appropriate.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Well, Jill it

theidiot wrote:
Well, Jill it doesn't interest me to respond to people who ignore the bulk of my post, and the requests I had for them, so when you figure out something more substantive to say than a sentence and half, and can provide something a bit more thought out, you let me know. 

Other than that, godspeed.

Similarly, it doesn't interest me to move on to a second argument when the first is still unfinished. Sorry you don't appreciate a terse argument, but rambling on isn't my thing.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2478
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Hold your

theidiot wrote:

Hold your horses buddy, I get irate when hearing someone run off at the mouth from their theastic biases, leading them to make silly and unwarranted conclusions about my theism, and my argument.

Right, I don't know you except from which I read from your posts so possibly I don't see or understand what you do. Golly gee whiz, that's exactly what we tell you all the time. Our different perspectives mean that since we reject the idea of god and spiritual mystical concepts we are talking to each other in basically different languages and clearly not understanding each other. My position is reality based while yours is spiritual based. As an ex-Christian non-believer I see your arguments which you inadvertently include. Comments you make have meanings that are based in religious concept which is inferred perhaps not on purpose but because you can't help yourself from expounding the message of Jesus since you are of such deep conviction. This is not per se criticism but an observation. Previously I said I don't care what you believe as that's up to you. It's when these ideas get into the secular area when issues develop. And again, I don't have any idea if you desire a theocracy or not as you have never made any comments about said subject.

theidiot wrote:

You claimed that my claim of the moral of the gospel story being "if you do not love you're dead, and if you love they'll kill you (Herbert Mccabe)." is not a warranted reading of the text, and all I did in my previous post is to show you that it was.

To be specific, I don't agree with your conclusions that the moral to be learned from the gospels is as you say. I saw it to be love your god and your neighbor. I'm very aware the neighbor also meant your enemies and responded accordingly that you did not need to point this out, I said preach. Since you don't know me either I understand why you felt the need to so respond.

theidiot wrote:

There was nothing in here about the current state of Christians today, if theist are more persecuted than atheist or whatever else have you, or if I find myself more persecuted than you do or whatever else have you. I didn't make a poor analogy, in fact i didn't even make an analogy.

I beg to differ. Your comments,

 

 

 

"He tells his followers that they will be persecuted, and suffer for the sake of living and sharing his message, he doesn't promise them a walk in the park. That to love in the christian sense is to truly love, and without it we are dead, and with it, others seek our death. 

In the Christian Gospels the cross just doesn't await Jesus, but his followers as well."

 

 

 

 

 

As an ex-Christian this meant to me persecution for the beliefs. Perhaps in the current environment persecution of Christians are not occurring because in general believers have been suppressing minorities as they have been in control. If not for the Constitution us low life non-believers would have no rights according to at least one Bush.

theidiot wrote:

And I ask that you kindly apologize for the above unwarranted tirade, or at least refrain from such hot-headed, misguided inferences from my posts.

I see nothing to which an apology is due as I was neither hot-headed nor in a tirade. I do regret if I misconstrued your intent due to my previous religious basis reading an inference that may have been unintentional on your part.

theidiot wrote:

Quote:
You OP was allegedly about Does Atheism Make Sense but so far you have done zilch to support a challenge to non-belief.

Uhm....ok...you're right i have done zilch to support a challenge to non-belief, and you know why that is? Because I have never been trying to create a challenge for non-belief? I never started this thread with the intention of winning converts, nor can i see how anything in what I posted can be reasonably interpreted as such. 

It's kind of sickening that every time you post in these forums, you have to go over the same tired shit, but I'm hoping you're reasoned enough to see your error, and correct it henceforth. Can i at least expect that much from you?

This works both ways. It seems that believers think we have little or no understanding of god beliefs and we have to go into detail each time over the same old issues. 

Perhaps you do  unintentionally put forth your ideas in hope of changing some minds whether it be posters or those that simply observe, I admit I do so in the remote chance of altering perceptions. Though I'd settle for tolerance and equality.

theidiot wrote:

Quote:
Your claim is there is a sky daddy that sent his son (part of himself) to die for those he made with free choices to placate himself for having an attitude about those that he made that he gave a free choice to make. So when the men he made pick a choice that wasn't what he wanted though he knew already they would he's disappointed and hangs the blame on all throughout all future generations. Unless they bathe in the blood of himself that was killed to placate his miffed feudal lord ego they all will be tossed as chaff into the pit of fire.

Uhm really? Is that my claim, that's fucking news to me! Is there anywhere in my post that I claimed this? In fact anywhere in this forum that I claimed this? Stick to claims that I do make. 

Same tired shit, gets annoying real quick.

A swearing nasty mouth believer? Sorry, I think such language is pointless and derogatory and undermines you as a person. It takes away credibility and lowers you deep in mire.

My comment was aimed at the general Christian belief system which propagates such a strange concept of belief. If you have some other belief that doesn't begin with the original sin concept requiring God to send his son to die for those that sinned against him to accept and believe on him please so explain. As you say you are a Christian, I may have inadvertently assumed you accepted this concept.

 

theidiot wrote:

And I ask you again, even if you understand so well, to explain to me what you think King is speaking of? Can you do that for me?

Specifically King means when you are feeling despaired and low remember that God is there working to destroy evil and bring forth his morality and justice. In the end, his power is the ultimate force.

That's his basic message though I consider it to be in error as evil has had a large basis in our world even in supposed goodness of Christian ideas. This is another area I will not open and you have not taken a position on it so I have nothing here to criticize. Then of course I don't agree there is such a thing as a higher power.

 

 

edit *sp*

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.