1. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239372 by theIdiot on August 29, 2008 at 1:57 pm

This is pretty pathetic if you ask me. It's a interfaith gathering for democrats, and an unbeliever is wondering why a person of non-faith is excluded? That's like wondering why the Log Cabin Republicans exclude heterosexuals, or why the National Black Republican Association and the Texan Coalition of Black Democrats excludes whites, or why a gathering of a union members who are democrats, excludes non-union members?

I mean does any one here wonder why Atheist Alliance International (the only democratic national atheist organization in the United States), excludes persons of faith?

This kind of whining among unbelievers, is a really bad image for you all to portray, because perceived in any other light it's just ludicrous.

2. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #215021 by theIdiot on July 21, 2008 at 7:47 am

112. Comment #214952 by Spinoza on July 21, 2008 at 5:33 am

That's just false. I have no desire to spend my time explaining Spinoza's metaphysics to someone who has so badly misunderstood it, in the comments section of Richard Dawkins' website. I can only suggest that you re-read what you've cited, because it doesn't support your interpretation.

You're nothing but a coward. I don't have difficulty reading apparently you do, so you decide to run behind the "I have no desire to spend my time explaining....". And I see you're not man enough to give me my apology.

The insinuation that I haven't read Spinoza (who I take as my namesake here) is ridiculous. I am a Spinoza scholar.

You're a Spinoza scholar? My ass. I might as well label Brian Sapient a religious scholar. Did you get a degree from a diploma mill? And if you read Spinoza, seems like you're having difficulty comprehending. Your problem is you're trying to mold his views to reflect your own, rather than providing an objective interpretation of his material. I called you out plainly, I provided you Spinoza's own words and asked you to show where exactly my interpretation of his words was outrageous. I figured it would be a simple task for you, but you just showed your cowardliness. You claimed I that outrageously misinterpreted his views, when I provided his own words, and asked you to show me where, you disgustingly cowered away, and refused to respond.

Spinoza's claim that Jesus communicated "mind to mind" with "God" means nothing more than that Jesus, so far as Spinoza can tell from Scripture (which is his project in the TTP), was a philosopher.

Find me one other person, one philosopher who Spinoza claimed communed with God "mind to mind". I bet you can't do that now can you?

To equivocate on that word, "God", here, and make supernatural claims, is to commit a grievous injustice against the man's entire philosophy. To equivocate on that word, "God", here, and make supernatural claims, is to commit a grievous injustice against the man's entire philosophy.

I don't have to make supernatural claims for Spinoza, he does so himself moron:

"God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. "

Did you read that: Supernatural voice. Are you now going to claim that when Spinoza uses "supernatural" he does not mean "supernatural"?

Spinoza claims that Christ's knowledge was neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of out natural knowledge, with clearly implies that Christ derived his knowledge from non-natural knowledge, which only implies that he derived it "supernaturally. He claims that God manifested himself to Moses "through the supernatural voice. He said Moses Communed with God friend with friend, but Christ communed with God mind to mind. While moses communed with God by means of supernatural voice, Christ communed with God by means of a supernatural mind.

You are a disgrace of a Spinoza scholar. Someone should strip you of your diploma. Don't accuse me of misinterpreting Spinoza, because I just put you to shame in the previous post, by clearing showing that I didn't.

You my friend are the true idiot, and this is the treatment you get from me for not providing me my apology, nor a half-decent response in defense of you allegations of misinterpretation.

3. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214833 by theIdiot on July 21, 2008 at 12:16 am

76. Comment #214805 by Spinoza on July 20, 2008 at 11:18 pm

Here we have supposed Spinoza expert who doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. I wonder if you've even actually read Spinoza's work?

I said Spinoza considered Christ unique, and that he communed with God mind to mind, you then go ahead and provide a useless introduction from an individual claiming Spinoza did not believe in the resurrection and had a few harsh things to say about Christian beliefs such as the eucharist and the devil. Well no shit sherlock. I never claimed Spinoza was a Christian. But I want an apology. I'm going to quote Spinoza directly. Then I'm going to follow it with what I wrote, that you said was outrageous. And I want you to show in what I said about Spinoza's view on Jesus, that was an outrageous misinterpretation of what Spinoza actually said about Jesus. When you can't show that I misinterpreted Spinoza I hope you're man enough to apologize to me.

Here's what I wrote, which you labeled as outrageous :

"Spinoza believed in the uniqueness of Christ, that Christ communed with God mind to mind, an attribute he claims only Christ had. Spinoza says that only Jesus attained so great a perfection as to be able to perceive, by the mind alone, truths which are not "contained in the foundations of our first knowledge or deducible from them,"."

Here's Spinoza:

"We may be able quite to comprehend that God can communicate immediately with man, for without the intervention of bodily means He communicates to our minds His essence; still, a man who can by pure intuition comprehend ideas which are neither contained in nor deducible from the foundations of our natural knowledge, must necessarily possess a mind far superior to those of his fellow men, nor do I believe that any have been so endowed save Christ. (48) To Him the ordinances of God leading men to salvation were revealed directly without words or visions, so that God manifested Himself to the Apostles through the mind of Christ as He formerly did to Moses through the supernatural voice. In this sense the voice of Christ, like the voice which Moses heard, may be called the voice of God, and it may be said that the wisdom of God (,i.e. wisdom more than human) took upon itself in Christ human nature, and that Christ was the way of salvation. (50) I must at this juncture declare that those doctrines which certain churches put forward concerning Christ, I neither affirm nor deny, for I freely confess that I do not understand them. (51) What I have just stated I gather from Scripture, where I never read that God appeared to Christ, or spoke to Christ, but that God was revealed to the Apostles through Christ; that Christ was the Way of Life, and that the old law was given through an angel, and not immediately by God; whence it follows that if Moses spoke with God face to face as a man speaks with his friend (i.e. by means of their two bodies) Christ communed with God mind to mind."

Go ahead, show me where my interpretation of Spinoza's own words were outrageous? You look pretty silly now don't you?


Spinoza did not believe in a personal God, but as you can see from the above quote he does not deny the supernatural, he even claimed the God spoke to Moses supernaturally, and that Christ did not acquire his knowledge from the foundations of natural knowledge. He goes on to claim that Christ communed with God mind to mind, and that the wisdom of God took upon itself in Christ human nature, and the Christ was the way to salvation. I didn't misinterpret Spinoza, those are his own goddamn words, as anyone can see from the above. You may be able to find some summary of Spinoza, but I brought you the man himself.

So go ahead, and admit to everyone that you have no clue as to what you're talking about, and give me my apology. Can you do that for me? I apologize for my tone, but I don't appreciate when individuals try to make me look foolish, as if I don't have a clue, when it's you not me who doesn't have a clue, but you.

Do you see now that what you've said is silly?

Apparently, it's not me who is looking silly here. I never claimed that Spinoza or Einstein believed in God normally conceived in the monotheistic religions. As they both reject a personal God. But as you can see its your understanding of Spinoza that's sorely lacking, not mine, and sadly you use his name as your online moniker?

So come again. Who looks silly now?

you, sir, are the idiot.<

I think I've proven who the real idiot it is.

Dawkins doesn't believe in Spinoza's God he is just to dumb to read. I'm judging he's never even read Spinoza. I would love to hear Dawkins claim that he believes Jesus communed with God mind to mind, or that God spoke to Moses through supernatural voice.

4. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #214640 by theIdiot on July 20, 2008 at 6:11 pm

19. Comment #214507 by Spinoza on July 20, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Spinoza's God is immanent in the Universe.. that is to say, it IS the Universe... not behind it...

One can easily be deceived in reading this that Spinoza and Einstein were classic atheist, as Dawkins proposes, or at least sexed up atheist.

Spinoza and EInstein's "God" (since Einstein did claim to believe in Spinoza's God) is not the truth of the universe as that which is scientific only, they believe their God conveys moral truth as well.

Spinoza believed in the uniqueness of Christ, that Christ communed with God mind to mind, an attribute he claims only Christ had. Spinoza says that only Jesus attained so great a perfection as to be able to perceive, by the mind alone, truths which are not "contained in the foundations of our first knowledge or deducible from them,".

For Spinoza God does not equal nature:

For I maintain that God is, as they say, the immanent, but not the transitive, cause of all things. That all things are in God and move in God, I affirm, I say, with Paul, and perhaps also with all the ancient philosophers, although in another way; and I would also dare to say, with all the ancient Hebrews, as far as it is permissible to conjecture from certain traditions, corrupted as they are in many ways. Nevertheless, some people think the TTP rests on the assumption that God is one and the same as Nature (by which they understand a certain mass, or corporeal matter). This is a complete mistake.

It takes an idiot like Dawkins to claim Einstein and Spinoza are atheist not too far from himself. But what can one expect from an individual who writes a book on God and religion, whose knowledge on the subject is equivalent to an individual whose understanding of biology comes from the "Book of British Birds"(yes, I'm biting off of Terry Eagleton here).

5. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #201586 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 8:48 pm

,

6. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201452 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 4:55 pm

Phil,

I am at a loss to see your religious half as having any of the main characteristics of the kind of religion that gets attacked here. It seems pretty much pick 'n' mix and dogma free if a little too fetishistic for my tastes. Dawkins is very clear at the outset of TGD to exclude from his sights the non-evangelizing, essentially Deist, tolerant, love and niceness type of religion we see some of in the UK and in Europe.

Dawkins, and companies onslaught doesn't stop at those "pesky" fundamentalist, even if he claims he does. How many debates has he gotten into with non-fundamentalist Christians, such as Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Allister McGrawth. He may claim that he hasn't developed a good argument for them, but this doesn't stop him from taking shots every chance he gets.

And just to clarify, the Christianity that I align myself with is of the orthodox tradition, with a belief in the bodily resurrection, and Christ as the incarnate Word. I'm not a deist, I'm a theist, who believes God revealed himself in history, in the person of Christ. Allegations of pick 'n' mix don't stick too well to me, but I do read the bible, and engage in exegesis, from a learned perspective that is historically informed, with a sound literary analysis, that I doubt anyone would label a specious piecing together.

I do not believe in a God who revealed himself in science, in the guise of a cosmic manufacturer, that is not the Christian God, even if it is the God fundamentalist are prone to advocate. The Christian God revealed himself in the form of a reviled and murdered political criminal. Ask me what the reason for my belief is, and I'd point you to Christ.

Now, in the previous post, I haven't felt the need to go into my Christian beliefs, because they were fairly irrelevant to the discussions. But I'm not a big fan of an erroneous labeling of my faith, and I felt compelled to correct you on this.

Don't defend other peoples religious dogma by seeking to deny us the right to attack it.

This is a really odd argument especially coming from Westerners. Judging that several evangelical atheist books have made it to the top of the best sellers list, that the authors have received much media attention, interview time even on conservative media outlets, such as FOX news, not to mention outlets such as Youtube, forums that are available to the public, I have to wonder who has denied you the right to criticize religion? If anything, you've been provided an open door.

I've attended several universities where students and Professors lambasted religion with free reign. If there's even been a moment in history where the atheist gets his time on the pulpit it's now.

So what crack have you been smoking?
I mean do you live in China?

Dogma, particularly religious dogma (because tradition confers it respect) locks in behaviors for long periods of time.

And where is the evidence that religious dogma locks in behavior more so that non-religious dogma?

Yes this can mean some good behaviours as well (I phrased it this way from the outset). But locked in behaviour cannot respond to new evidence and that makes it dangerous.

I can tell this is not psychologically informed. The dilemma of the creationist like, is not much different than the dilemma of 9/11 conspiracy theorist (a popular movement by the way even in the unbelievers camp), Jesus Mythicist, holocaust deniers, and can be found in various individuals of particular ideology whether it's liberalism, socialism, feminism, anti-theism, nationalism, and etc...

There is little distinction here as to why some believers block out evidence, and suffer bouts of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, then the same phenomenon occurring to individual in the above categories.

The reason for it, is that these components of their life hold a sense of meaning for them, that they do not desire to lose. I ran across a christian the other day who would stay away from material from atheist that attempted to take apart his beliefs, even the dubious claims, because he didn't want to risk losing his belonging in the Christian community which he enjoyed very much. This element of humanity, is no different than why a mother will defend her son's innocence, even when the evidence points to his guilt.

And any time we see this occurrence appearing, to develop an informed view on it, we should be looking into what the person fears losing, what are they trying to preserve.

I encountered this dilemma often in my discussions with forum unbelievers who in their rage against religion, isolate religious acts and behaviors from the same phenomenon occurring without religious ties. In their view religion is to blame for the actions of suicide terrorist, even though mosque attendance is a negative indicator of it, while membership in a soccer club is a positive indicator, and that prior to 9/11 the bulk of suicide terrorist were secular nationalist. Confirmation bias kicks in when presented with evidence that differs from the views that emerge from their angst.

The dilemma that you point out, has little to do with religion, and more to do with irrationality of human nature. Disbelief does not rid us of it.

7. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201153 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 7:56 am

Phil,

'm not interested in the specifics of our differing "Meanings" at all. I'm asking, if you think meaning is a found thing, and if you have found yours and I claim I made mine.

Well, I don't think you made yours either. I believe you "found" it as well.

surely you must think yours the better? Even if I agreed that mine was found also, could we decide on which was better?

:)

No I don't think my sword is bigger than yours. I don't even know what you find meaningful, but even that would be irrelevant. What I find meaningful might be better for me than what you find meaningful, and what you find meaningful might be better for you that than what I find meaningful.

Re Kurosawa
No. Just read IMDB. I must see it clearly. I am a great Kurosawa fan, though I've only seen a few,
Rashomon, Kumonoso jo, Kagemusha and of course the Seven Samurai. ,

I conisder Ikiru his best. And it's a perfect film for the topic of discussion. You should check it out some time.

8. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201151 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 7:44 am

Your responses to my earlier questions seem strangely neutral and defensive given your original explosive assertions.

I don't know how my response is both neutral and defensive, or what my original explosive assertions are? My claim was that we don't make meaning, we find it, and I provided a lengthy response to go over why this is so.

I have a feeling that you may be referring to a claim of mine you quoted but cut off a relevant part to. Which you quoted as: "Atheism is a denial of a meaning for human existence." Leaving out the "For me" part at the beginning, or in other words my atheism is a denial of a meaning for human existence, a point I elaborated on in length in the previous post. This doesn't mean that your atheism is the same. But you did ask a few good questions on this point, which I was planning on answering, but I haven't gotten around to it yet.

The tasty food metaphor seems strangely incomplete also. We may indeed discover pre-existing ingredients for taste/meaning. Whilst in isolation these ingredients (e.g.salt) have taste, separately they are unsatisfying. Just as elemental facts about the world per se have no meaning. We are our own chefs selecting ingredients from anywhere we may. Satisfying taste and meaning may be synthesised (sic, man made)in a myriad differing ways.

When someone says to me we can make meaning, I see them as believing that meaning can be equated to an active choice. That I can choose meaning, like I can choose if i should eat broccoli or not, or what color shirt I should wear, rather than seeing it along the lines of something like taste. Either broccoli taste good or it doesn't, but I can't choose that it taste good or not, either it is or it isn't. I can taste a bite of broccoli and say it taste yucky, and it's not going to taste better on the second bite by waving a wand and saying this time it's going to taste good.

And I'm confused about what the difference is in eating salt in isolation, and eating salt separately?

And at this point I'm requesting that you use examples to explain your points better. Perhaps you can tell us how you "made" meaning, and how it works with a conceivable example.

9. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201145 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 7:11 am

Comment #201135 by phil rimmer on June 29, 2008 at 6:16 am

Quick question, have you ever seen Kurisowa's film, "Ikiru"? If so, then I have a point of reference to help you see what I am getting at better, if not than I'll just do so without it.

10. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201144 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 7:04 am

Phil,

Your Christian "Meaning" (of sin and redemption??) and my "Meaning" (of, say, collective creativity) are hugely different. Is yours in any absolute sense better (i.e.independent of you and me)?

I think you're using meaning here with two slightly different connotations.

If you're asking about the Christian meaning of sin and redemption, the question can be one of which is: "why do find the concepts of sin and redemption to be meaningful to your life." And I may be able to explain that to you, as I may be able to explain to you why I love my mother, without you finding it meaningful, and without falling in love with my mother yourself.

If you're asking about the Christian meaning of sin and redemption, the question can be one of which is: "what does sin and redemption mean to the writers of the New Testament". This type of endeavor is not dependent on if we find the concepts meaningful to our lives. In fact, me and you may be able to reach an agreement on this. Since the question is reminiscent of asking what is the meaning of a fable, a poem.

For collective creativity, you and I may be able to reach an agreement on what it means, on what it is, yet disagree on how we find it meaningful to our lives.

So in terms of sin and redemption, I would have to ask you what exactly are you asking? Why do I find these concepts meaningful to my life, or what do these concepts mean.

Does your sense of "Meaning" inform your morality and your behavior?

Hum, I don't believe so. Meaning may be how I make sense of my morality and behavior, but not inform it. But I would have to think about this question more, before I could provide a satisfying answer. Perhaps you can elaborate this question?

Does your sense of "Meaning" demand public action other that the simple relief of harm? (E.g. My sense of "Meaning" deserves wider acceptance or, deserves not to be attacked.) ,

Let's say I found seeking justice for the poor to be meaningful, demanding public action on behalf of the poor, might just be a meaningful pursuit. Since I find seeking justice for the poor to be meaningful, if demanding public action is a means of achieving justice for the poor, than it might just be meaningful as well.

11. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201119 by theIdiot on June 29, 2008 at 5:01 am

(I'm going to try and keep the meaning post separate from other responses, and address them both to FIHZBURN and PHIL RIMMER, so I don't have to go over the same things twice. So the response here is for both of you.)


FIHZBURN:

"You claim we find meaning, rather than make it. How do we recognize meaning? It's not a special "non-natural property" I hope. I should think that Waiting for Godot is a good example of the problem with waiting for purpose to drop out of the sky."

I never said we had to wait for purpose to drop out of the sky. Meaning is an attraction, and what I like to compare it to is taste. Either I find something tasty or I don't. There are plenty of things that I haven't tried yet, that I might find tasty. Though I might be able to say that I probably wouldn't find something tasty based on the ingredients I'm familiar with, such as I might find the taste of cheese to be nasty, therefore I probably wouldn't like a cheeseburger.

FIHZBURN:

"Is there something wrong with us that we can't create meaning? I doubt this, since I, and perhaps others here can second this (phil rimmer, I'm glancing at you out of the corner of my eye), see myself as creating the meaning in my life. You must be saying we're wrong about this self-assessment, but for the life of me I can't figure out what's wrong with it. "

Well, I think you and phil rimmer are perceiving it wrong. I could say I made an once tasteless broth tasty by adding seasoning to it. But the complete picture reveals that I made it tasty by adding ingredients that I already "found" tasty to it. I find salty food tasty, a saltless broth is not tasty, if I add salt to it, and have it taste salty, the broth is now tasty.

I can "make" something that was once meaningless to be meaningful by perceiving what I already found meaningful in it. A meaningless job might become meaningful when I made friends out of coworkers, and developed a community with them. Meaning is not made it's found. I can bring ingredients that i found meaningful into a once meaningless broth to have it taste meaningful, but that's about it.

There's nothing wrong with us that we can't create meaning, anymore so than there is nothing wrong with me, since snapping my fingers and willing broccoli to taste good doesn't work. There is nothing wrong with you or me, because somethings taste good to you and somethings don't taste good to me. There is nothing wrong with you or me, because somethings are meaningful to you and meaningless to me. And there is nothing wrong with us, in the we can't say to ourselves make what each other find meaningless, meaningful, and have it happen.


PHIL RIMMER:

"Is meaning innate in the fabric of the universe? Is it a new separate and singular thing gifted by God at the moment of the sacrifice of his son? Is it an aesthetic "light" in your/our heads if and when we come to find it/recognize it?"

:)

Well, I should just tell you that I'm not the best spokesperson for the cosmos. And it seems as silly to me to say meaning was gifted to us by God at the moment of the sacrifice of his son, as it would be for me to say that Kit Kits became tasty when a Jew was nailed to a piece of wood.

PHIL RIMMER:

"Caught your glance. The fact that we do seem to fabricate meaning for ourselves does demand an explanation. That many people seem to live happy lives with such a variety of differing meanings and that some find the Christian story as it has been finally rendered through the centuries quite reppelant needs an explanation too."

It needs as much of an explanation as why do some people find peanut butter to be the best stuff on earth, while others would rather eat shit.

PHIL RIMMER:

"A final question for the moment. What happens when theIdiot dies? And is it the same for all of us?"

I don't know. I haven't died yet.

PHIL RIMMER:

PS What time zone are you in?

I'm from Philadelphia, so it's Eastern Time.

12. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201032 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 8:15 pm

Ah, ok he was little better in that video, but he's pretty bad in Dr. Who! Thats was a tomato tossing performance.

13. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201030 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Dawkins may be a brilliant scientist, but he sure is an awful actor.

14. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201027 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Phil: "The first quote doesn't cut it for me because, as I said, I believe we are meaning makers, as I think you acknowledge in your second quote above."

No, we're not meaning makers. We find meaning not make it. A point that I covered with Fihzburn in Comment #200962, I ask that you read it, so I don't have to repeat it again in a response to you.

I'm sorry for not responding to the rest of your post yet, its slightly lengthy, and it will take me a little time to respond to the various points you make.

15. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201025 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Goldy: "TheIdiot, all this would make more sense if it wasn't for the fact that the Gospels that I read are those chosen by men following Paul's traditions (Synod of Niceae, 300-something). "

Uhm, another no. Nearly every Christian community orthodox and those labeled heretic adhered to at least one of the four Gospels, such as the Gnostics and the Gospel of John, the Ebionites and Matthew, Adoptionist and Mark, Marcionites and Luke, etc….

The Nicean council may have canonized the four Gospels, but they have had a popular appeal to varying Christian communities heretic and otherwise long before canonization.

Goldy: "As for "Paul takes issue with..." - maybe it would be more convincing if it wasn't so one sided. Can you point me to James' Epistle, or even gospel?
Everything is rather Pauline, as I am sure you will agree. "

Uhm, all we need is one side of the issue to understands Paul's point of view. We are only concerned with one side of the issue. We're not talking about how James saw dietary rituals, and others works of the law, we are talking about how Paul saw it, and what Paul's issue with it was, not James's, of even if Paul misunderstood James's position.

16. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201024 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 7:27 pm

can someone tell me how to do the quote windows in comment post?

17. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201016 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 7:01 pm

GOMAK:

"Gosh, I hate it when a troll with severe psychological problems hijacks a thread.

I know sometimes it gets boring arguing among ourselves because it is very difficult to find points of disagreement but that doesn't mean it would be worthwhile to debate anyone who is a random argument/swear word generator.

Finally, we all agree that there is no serious evidence for God, soul, ghosts, higher powers, angels and the rest and we all know why the existing claims are non-sense; what I am saying is that these discussions with trolls with mental problems hardly adds anything new to the discussion and rarely (if ever) has any positive effect on the troll."

Odd, here we have someone who was to label me a troll, and yet accuses me having severe psychological issues. One of the most comical allegations I've heard in ages. But why don't you back it up? Why don't you provide the assessment that leads you to this conclusion? Or am I spotting a pot calling a kettle black?

Now, I've toned down my language quite a bit at the request of a few people on this forum. But swipe jobs such as this tend to give me reasons, to become a recidivist.

18. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #201005 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Goldy: "Christianity was not Jesus' invention. Paul of Tarsus saw a quick buck in the making and started a new cult. I believe there was conflict between him and Jesus' own family. A lot of the NT is Pauline spin doctoring and marketing - no circumcision and the lack of porcine restrictions on diet are meant to appeal to Gentiles and hence broaden the appeal. He must have been good at promotions - see how Christianity flourished! I dare say if he were alive today, Paul would be a concert promoter or something... "


Uhm, no.

I suggest you familiarize yourself better with the Epistles, and first century Judaism. First of all Paul's issue with circumcision and dietary laws is not much different than Christ's issue with the legalistic practices of the Pharisees, particularly as means to exclude gentiles, the poor etc from God's community. Paul doesn't see anything wrong with individuals who adhere to the dietary laws, and circumcision, just as Jesus would not have had an issue if individuals chose to wash their hands before they ate, in the tradition of the elders.

Paul and Jesus' issue is when these practices are used as a means of exclusion. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for resorting to the practices to exclude the disciples from the meal table. Paul takes issue with James who at one point stops eating with the Gentile Christians, to eat only with Jewish Christians who still adhered to the dietary laws. Paul doesn't take issue with Jewish Christians who adhered to the dietary laws, but he takes issue when the practice is used as a mean to exclude and divide the Christian community between Jew and Gentile.

Paul wasn't adding something new here to the Gospel. He is proclaiming the message of a God who ripped the temple veil, whose presence is not confined to a corner of a temple, but all of humanity. He is proclaiming the message of the Gospel of a God who is not a God of the Jews, but the God of all people, in whose Kingdom community, Jew and Gentile, whore and publican, rabbi and leper share the dinner table.

The Gospel sees a once tribal religion, as a religion of all people. The Gospels see the Israel messiah, as redeemer of all humanity. This was not Paul's invention silly, it's the pronounced theme of all the Gospels. He is sharing in Jesus' Kingdom vision, not creating his own.

19. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200962 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 4:04 pm

FIZHBURN: "The following is partly rhetorical, partly diagnostic.

Why not immerse yourself in the admittedly human-made arts then? Surely the sublime is available to us all through them. "

One can appreciate the beauty of a painting, yet faced with a consuming sense of misery, a painting is perhaps not the best escape from it. A painting can be quite beautiful, but not be a source of hope.

FIZHBURN: "I can't tell if you've already decided whether the new testament gospels are true or not. If so, why think you're searching for anything? If not, why commit yourself to a historically (that is, factually) dubious story?"

My favorite stories have been historically dubious ones, just not l literary dubious. The Brother Karamazov is my favorite novel, that conveys truth--poetic statements of truth, just not historical ones. To commit myself to meaning implies that the value of the Gospels is literary. As a poetic I find the Gospels to be true, as historical truth, I'm skeptical.

FIZHBURN: "The existentialists have a lesson for us, which is that in the absence of a meaning imposed upon us by the world (by some deity, for instance, or fate), we must make our own meaning. Does this idea frighten you? "

:)

No, it doesn't frighten me, though it's not true. We do not make meaning, we find meaning. I can't make meaning, something is either meaningful to me or it's not. I can't will something to be meaningful. I can't snap my heals and will living in a cave the rest of my life to be a meaningful life. Either it is meaningful or not. Meaning is like taste, such as broccolli either taste good to me or it doesn't. I can't just say to myself the second before I eat it, "Aberkedabera taste good", and have it happen.

We find meaning in things, but we don't make it. Something is either meaningful or it isn't. If you tell me to make my own meaning, I wouldn't have a clue as to how.

(I have thread somewhere were I went over this in length, and if I can find it, i'll link it here. )

FIZHBURN: "Why do you need to find something outside yourself that isn't the wonderousness of the natural world or of human interaction and creativity? Do you insist that "meaning and hope" are only available through theism, and if so why would you think that?"

I never said meaning and hope are available only through theism, meaning and hope may be only available through a belief in God for me, but this doesn't mean that this is true for you. For a mother I know, the only sense of hope and meaning she can find is in her God, in a belief that a mother's tears do not go by unanswered. The struggles of her existence deprive her of finding hope in finite creativity, her hope can only be derived from faith in a transcendent poem. Disbelief has no answer for her, disbelief is her breaking into pieces.

FIZHBURN: "If truth is beauty, and beauty truth, you can find plenty of both without resorting to worship of some invisible mystery."

Or it could just be a worship of that which we find to be beautiful and true.

"the main question that troubled me greatly all my life was the existence of god. And now I have a clear and sacred symbol of my faith and it's very simple. It's Jesus Christ. And I believe that there is nothing (and nothing can be) more beautiful, profound, sensible and perfect than he is"
~Dostoevsky

20. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200942 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 2:47 pm

and one man's unadulterated horseshit is another man's gold

...or at least a good fertilizer.

21. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200938 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 2:44 pm

...as long as you don't try to fuck me in the ass, I don't mind.

22. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200933 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Ha!

junior fuckwit......

...that was a good one, i like that one.

:)

23. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200920 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Phil: "You have described the nature of your theism (a search for meaning perhaps guided by aesthetic considerations)."

We are meaning seeking creatures, trying to make a poem out of life. This is the component of human existence in which religion (not simply theism) emerges from. Meaning is an aesthetic fulfillment, and truth in this aesthetic component of human existence is poetic.

Phil: "I'd also be interested in your "other half" i.e. your atheist half. I think it was Tera who suggested you were a "category 2 or 3" Agnostic. Why would you not describe yourself as such? This half and half description is intriguing."

There's probably a few pieces missing to derive at where I am coming from. So let's start a bit of clarification. Atheism is not an easy term to define, as Noam Chomsky once said, "I can't even call myself an "atheist" because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny." It is a description difficult to pin down, and can have a different sense of meaning for each individual. For me Atheism is a denial of a meaning for human existence.

For a number of atheist it is: "there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, therefore I doubt his existence". Their view on God is based on a scientific validation of him. I also see no scientific evidence for a belief in God, but I never cared for a scientific validation of him to begin with. I have no belief in a God who reveals himself in science. Even in my youth the question of God, had nothing to do with science at all, never have I had a creationist desire to validate a belief in God with it.

The question of God for me is not one which wonders if he has a scientific existence. The question of God existing is a meaning one. God for me is validated and rejected by meaning. And while for some atheist the question of God is contingent on science, the question of God for me (and some other atheist) are contingent on meaning. God's existence is an answer for an aesthetic fulfillment: Is life full of sound and fury but signifies nothing, or does it have a meaning and purpose.

I'm an atheist because I am trapped on this question, with a crucified innocence I have to make sense of. As a witness to life's cruelties and misery, that only faith can give meaning to. If I was not a witness to a tortured body, agnosticism, or even committed atheism would be easy. But as a witness to a cross, I'm always stuck with an answer, either I believe or I don't believe.

Somedays I wake up believing, some days I don't.

(Theodore Dalrymple has an excellent article in the City Paper that goes over some of what I have just discussed, and I'm just going to link it here: http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html)

24. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200864 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 10:55 am

"Ooh, that wouldn't be an ad hominem would it? And such a strong one at that. I am suitably chastened."

On reflection, I agree it was pretty strong.

Individuals attempt to tell me what my theistic beliefs are pretty much out of their ass, before they even ask or otherwise, and I attempted to do the same thing with you, based on attaching your picture to your posts. It was a creative endeavor that failed, and turned quite nasty.

And I apologize.

25. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200847 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 10:24 am

Steve, I swear you were born a woman.

When I said I can be menacing nasty bloc, I wasn't calling you out for who has a bigger dick contest. Nor was I using it to praise myself. I could have easily have said I can be Jerk, but not just a jerk, but a real jerk, or I can be mean spirited, and horrifically mean spirited at that.

I'm sure a number of indivuals would agree that I can be a nasty bloke, and I'm sure a number of them will concur that I can be a really bad nasty bloke at that, but they wouldn't be complimenting me.

26. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200841 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 10:12 am

fizhburn,

I want you to know that I'm not ignoring the post you wanted me to answer. In fact I started on a response the other day, but I had to leave before I could finish it.

But I'll respond soon enough.

27. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200839 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 10:07 am

comment #200825 by Steve Zara

Prepared to admit who I am?

Steve let's get a few things straight, I'm not afraid or ashamed to admit who I am. But I get tired of an argument that has nothing to do with my theism, turning into argument about my theism.

As you can see, when I gave a brief view of my religious belief, at your request the topic totally departed from a discussion about the effect of religion on behavior, to my theism. Add to that a number of post accusing me of being a creationist, to a Rev. Spong like liberal christian, asking me to provide proof for the supernatural, when I never made any claims about the supernatural at all, etc... and you can how quickly annoying this becomes. When you have to deal with this nearly every time you post on an atheist forum, one can begin to understand why I'm quick to get angry.

When I want to have a discussion that has nothing to do with my theism, I want to have a discussion that has nothing to do with my theism.

When I encounter individuals who like to mock my beliefs and even worse what they assume are my beliefs when my theism was never on the table to begin with, I became a nasty bloke. And a menacing one at that.

It becomes particularly a sore spot, when individuals wouldn't dare resort to such tactics when talking to an individual such as myself in person. I know it's perhaps best to ignore such posters, but I'm a confrontational type of dude, and not so much a turn the other cheek kind of guy.

But at this point in time the previous, the original discussion seems to be dead. So if you want to ask questions about who I am, religious beliefs, and whatever else then ask away.

28. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200796 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 8:48 am

STEVEY: "I did mean it. I was wrong, and it is only fair, and honest, to admit it.

But just on that point.

I still think theIdiot is a brash buffoon. I found the gay/abortion statement he posted highly offensive."

So you know it's not my stance, yet you're offended by me articulating a stance and view of others?

Well, stevey I'm not going to waste my time soothing a wounded vagina. If you offend so easily, I suggest you stay the fuck out the kitchen.

29. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200786 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 8:42 am

"Except, Catholics I knew corrected me when I made the assumption that it was symbolic only. That is not what they were told to believe."

Well, Catholics seem to make a point of seeing their symbols as real. And I might argue the reason for it, is so that remembrance of Christ death is taken seriously, and contemplatively, rather seeing the Eucharist just as a mere ritual. Though I my self find it odd to claim that the bread and wine are literally flesh and blood, because even here literally is only a symbol as well.

"And whenever I attended catholic church, to keep my girlfriend at the time company, the old testament was as extensivley read as the gospels. (much to my disgust)."

Well, I've never encountered an individual who claims the OT is the Gospel as well, the Gospel is the Good News of the Kingdom, a term that has political implication as well, as the Gospel in Roman world was the news of, or the celebration of, Caesar, while the early Christians subverts this as a celebration of Christ, and the good news of the kingdom.

It doesn't make a lick of sense to refer to the OT as Gospel, and I have feeling that you assume since the OT was extensively read, this implies is was the Gospel, rather than actually meeting catholics who claim that it is.

30. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200738 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 7:26 am

"If you want to deal with that post, then yes, I did misread it. To my shame, I should have admitted that earlier. I was, I feel, understandably confused by your earlier statements regarding God, but nevertheless it was dishonest of me not to have conceded this, and I apologise. "

Thank you, and I apologize for my fit of rage. I just never took too kindly to false accusations, especially those that question my integrity.

31. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200726 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 7:07 am

Stevey: "That was because you had already written a post in which you said something like:

"God does not hold people back from being good".

Clearly implying theistic beliefs. "

No, stevey. See, I do hold theistic beliefs, as I said earlier when i provided you a brief outline of my religious views. The statement above was not an assertion of them, though I guess I can see why you assumed it was. What was irrelevant and foolish on your part, is that you attempted to deviate from what was being discussed, and tried to make an issue out of topic that wasn't on the table, requesting me to provide you proof of the supernatural, and other nonsense. At least if I implied something along the lines of I can provide you proof of the supernatural or whatever, you're question would have made some sense. And yet even now, i fail to understand that even if you took that sentence as a confession of my theism, why you even attempted to ask those dumb question anyway.

And I can't seriously believe a thinking individual, could not get what I was implying with my sentence in context, in which i repeated my point about a belief in God, and religion on behavior.

"I can't help that you get post something, get irate, and then try and pretend you didn't, or that we are misreading."

Yea, I tend to become a nasty irated bloc when individuals starts accusing me of bullshit, such as trying to pretend, or that I just pulled out an accusation of you misreading out my ass.

"You have done it too often now. The awful post about holding back from gay rights and abortion being related to society being "over-sexualized" was the last straw for me."

Read the fucking post moron. And answer this fucking question, and we'll get to the bottom if I'm falsely accusing you of misreading my post, or if in fact you actually did: Did I, or did I not claim that I don't hold those stances, in the original post?

And when you have the fucking balls to answer this damn question, let me know.

32. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200717 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 6:50 am

[quote]epeeist: "Someone looking for belief in belief? "[/quote]

Belief in belief? I don't even know what the fuck that means. No one believes for the sake of believing, they believe because what they believe adds some sort of purpose and meaning to their lives.

[quote]You would like to think it real but then realise it would mean believing that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father could make you live forever if you symbolically ate his flesh and telepathically told him you accepted him as your master, so he could remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humans because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree and thereby pissing off an invisible wizard who lives in the sky. Waking up after being transformed into a monstrous vermin sounds rather more likely. Here's a hint: you are not a re. Goldmund is a much better model if you want a life that has meaning. "[/quote]

This is why most of todays atheist are easily rejectable. You would never hear memorable atheist such as Nietzche trying pass of this garbage as informed.

And no eating the bread and wine has no magical power, it's a symbolic remembrance of the death Christ. Judging that the Gospel never even mention Adam, an unbeliever reading the Gospel and drawing this conclusions sounds like an idiot.

I've always found this odd, unbelievers who see fundamentalist christian as ignorant on everything else, politics, science, history, etc...and yet hold them as brilliant exegetes. They can't even wrap their heads around the ideas of the gospel, that even Nietzche understood, the paradoxial myth.

33. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200699 by theIdiot on June 28, 2008 at 6:01 am

Stevey: "I am seeing a pattern here.

Something is posted, and then backed off from as "not my view". It happened with a phrase about God not holding people back from being good. It is now happening about this awful statement about rights and sexuality and sexualisation.

I don't have the patience to attempt to second-guess what you might actually mean as against what I read. "

You're an idiot, judging that the original post that you accused me of holding position I do not hold, I wrote "I don't agree with their stances", the problem is not me, the problem is you and your inability to read. You don't see a fucking pattern here, you're inventing one.

Stevey I know your type, you don't have any more argument left so you're looking for whatever straws you can find to grasp on to and make an issue out of.

And i really don't give two shits whether you choose to respond to my post or not. You're a grown man, and I don't need to hold your hand.

34. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200469 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Decius: "As you can see, no known definition of truth comes near to your poetic reinterpretation, and dropping Jesus in amounts to just another theistic non-sequitur, which really cracks me up. Honestly.

You will also notice that reality is germane to all the above definitions of truth, and when you subjectively redefine the latter, implicitly you make a claim on reality which is post-modern in essence.
In other words, either you accept the principle of bivalence (as described by Dummett) either you don't, but you can't have it both ways, as you did with your two last mutually contradictory comments. "

Here decius we'll break it down for you even further, and remove all religious references in the process to get you through this.

The truth of the three little pigs, is a poetic truth, not a scientific literal truth that imprudence is met by being eating by a talking wolf.

Many moral truths, such as do unto others as you would have them do unto you, are poetic truths. Because the quality about them is aesthetic.

A truth of a literary narrative is a poetic, not a scientific truth of what if any component of the story is historical.

Any notion of truth which is statement of meaning, is poetic. It's an aesthetic that makes it true. Such truth is entirely distinct from scientific notions of truth where meaning is irrelevant.

Do you understand yet? or do I need to break this down even further?

35. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200448 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Fizburn "Come on, this is disingenuous. I've never heard any religious person seriously making this claim as their foundational reason for being anti-choice or anti-lifestyle-freedom."

Are you serous?

Here's James Dobson, was one the most influential leaders of the religious right:

"And that's why it [same-sex marriage] will destroy marriage. It will undermine the traditional relationship between men and women. It has happened in the Netherlands. Young people are not getting married. When you go in that direction, you confuse the meaning of marriage, and then it is destroyed. The family is destroyed."

The most frequent argument you'll find for opposition to gay marriage is a belief that it serves as a gateway, that undermines the traditional role of family, and blurs the line on sexuality. In fact the entire political argument against gay marriage is its effect on society and family.

Stevey: "You have undone Philip's recent good work, and put me back in a foul mood.

Do you realize the moronity of this statement? Are you SERIOUSLY trying to say that because straight people shag "too much", gay people should not have equal rights, and women should not have control over their own bodies?

This has to be one of the dumbest and offensive things I have read here for a long while. "

Please, stevey before you draw your own conclusion, make sure you read my post again. I never claimed these were my views, in fact I claimed I don't agree with these stances. But i can understand them. I lived San Francisco for four years of my life, went to gay bars with coworkers for drinks, my stance on homosexuality is quite liberal. And I've had plenty of discussions with fundamentalist christians on this topic, to at least understand their view. The validation of Gay Marriage to individuals who oppose it is that it is seen as validation of the Gay lifestyle, whose views on sexuality are far from traditional. If the popular perception of homosexuals was log cabin republicans, the issue would be quite different.

If you ever visited castro a neighborhood in san francisco were bookstores and sex shops, and good restaurants meet, one can quickly find that this is surely not the type of neighborhood traditionalist would be proud of, in fact it might just be a traditionalist's nightmare. There's an exaltation of sexuality that makes traditionalist uncomfortable. Add to that male prejudices, that see the acceptance of homosexuality as a threat to the their own masculinity, and you're dealing with an issue that can't be simply labeled as a religious dilemma. In fact we can find societies such as India who have no religious basis for an opposition towards homosexuality, who are far more intolerant, dangerously so, than americans. It would be naive to treat the underlying issue facing both societies as entirely different. And it would be erroneous to claim that the issue is worse in America than in India, or harder to repair, just because in America a religious component is involved, because anyone with a passing familiarity with the issue in India would know that this is not true.

And as I said, I myself am not opposed to gay marriage, but I understand the view of the other side well enough that I can articulate it.

36. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200437 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 4:19 pm

122. Comment #200426 by decius on June 27, 2008 at 3:24 pm

"Since theidiot redefines words as he goes and holds a half-digested post-modern concept of truth, before you guys waste too much of your time in a semantic wild goose chase, ask him first if he agrees on the existence of an objective reality. "

Ah, decius why ask others to ask me a question, when you could do so yourself. And sure I agree in the existence of an objective reality, such as I believe the bed I'm laying in now is objectively here.

And to correct you I don't have a post-modern concept of truth, in fact my concept of truth is premodern. When Christ claims he is the truth, he's not claiming one call pull out theory of relativity out of his ass. It's not a scientific notion of truth, it's a poetic/meanigized notion of it. The difference between popular modern notion of truth particularly among disbelievers and the premodern world, is that truth is a meanigized/poetic notion in the premodern world, while in modern world truth becomes that which is scientific, and what is, not what it means. My notion of truth is far from any post-modern concept of it, that's for sure.

"To which he will reply with an attempt at mangling the word "reality" beyond recognition, and his nihilism -that he fervently denies- will become apparent, as well as the uselessness of any further communication."

Ah, decius I'm sure others can develop their own opinion of me, without your help, so I doubt they need you saving grace. If you want to have a discussion with me go ahead, if you believe I'm taking you on a wild goose chase, then make the case for it. But as of now, you've become the annoying and useless poster, who claims I should be ignored, but can't ignore me enough to stop coming back and telling others they should ignore me.

37. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200430 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Stevey: "The situation is not equivalent. If, as has happened, people try and claim science as a justification, they still have to explain why "science" would be an ethical justification for anything."

Well, when one justifies notions such as communism, nazism, eugenics (much of the developed supported it at one time, our beloved Scandinavian countries, Canada, etc..), they always provide a why. In my time with unbelievers, a frequent habit is justifying all their actions by science, even if the motives of their actions are not science at all, though they attempt to provide a scientific "why". Human actions must be broken down to derive at their actual motives and roots, beyond the skin of it, even beyond their proclaimed justifications, and questionable "whys".

Stevey: "However, religion is considered intrinsically a source of morality in most cases. That is where the problem lies. It is the combination of claims that religion is a source of universal morality together with the cultural pressure not to question religion. It is that combination that can be a serious problem.[...]There is also the problem illustrated by the diversity of religious thought - in spite of claims that religion is a source of morality, no universal standard for these has been found."

Here you painted an oddity, that I request you think more on. One is the religion is considered an intrinsic source of morality, that has a cultural pressure not to be questioned, yet we have such a diversity in religious thought, than no universal standard can be found. I'd have to wonder why do you think there is such diversity. If individuals are painting their own ethical framework, from were do they derive their paint? If not the social context from which they emerge from? And doesn't follow if the social context changes, that their ethical framework will shift again as well?

Stevey: "Religion is a form of ethical anarchy. It is as each group of believers is given a blank book, within which they write their own ethical framework, and then delude themselves into believing that they didn't write that framework - God did, through them. "

And it's given that all religious individuals will see there ethical framework as one God approves of, it would be quite strange if they held an ethical framework they felt God wouldn't approve of. Some unbelievers (Sam Harris too as I recall) believe that their ethical framework can be derived from science, and what happens is the same phenomena. Of individuals believing their ethical framework is one with a scientific stamp of approval, and if little of it is actually derived some scientific inquiry.

Stevey: "This is surely potentially dangerous. I have no objection to people discussing ethics and devising their own frameworks. It is shutting this process away behind the protective wall of religion, and saying that we have to accept what they say as divine truth that I object to. "

This is odd to me, and I have to wonder if your exposure to religious individuals is limited to television and forums? I live in the US, and I'm surrounded by the company of evangelical Christians, many of whom consider themselves fundamentalist. Even in my own childhood up bringing in a pentecostal church, one thing I never felt was the pressure to not question. Nor, did I feel my companions minds were especially resistant to discussion on ethics any more so then with liberal unbelievers.

And judging that views of even sects of Christians such as evangelicals fluctuate and change with times, such as the current loss of influence and power of the evangelical right among the evangelical community, it would be quite odd to claim that religious individuals are not prone to ethical discussions, and shifts in ethical frameworks. You should visit a christian forum, and see how lively and passionate such debates are among believers.

And there is more to a deeply grounded moral framework than what meets the eye. Such as one can not reflect on the moral framework of a fundamentalist christian, until one examines the events that led to the fundamentalist movement, such as rapid secularization, and the polarization caused by it. Gay rights, and abortion are just two notions in a stance against an overtly sexualized culture. As someone who the other day over heard two eleven year olds discussing a girl who gave one of them head, I can sympathize with their skepticism, though I don't agree with their stances. The problem I have with the typical atheist view on religion, is that it's just scapegoating, and is neither reflective or learned. It's the inclination to blame religion for the woes of the world, more so than a reflection on cause. It's the inclination to treat religion as mutually exclusive, while completely ignoring the various other factors that go into paintings our actions and views.

38. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200417 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Phil: "Might I ask if you would consider a search for truth more important than a search for God? (My thinking: A search for truth will find God if he exists. If he doesn't at least you end up with truth.) "

Well, I have feeling your notion of truth is different than mine. For you a search for God is perhaps some sort of scientific endeavor, proof under a microscope. For you truth is perhaps that which is scientifically true. For me truth is something poetic. For me truth is a reflection on meaning, not a reflection on the composition of the cosmos.

For me proof of God is not magical cells under a microscope, for me proof of God is Christ, as definitive perception and recognition of history.

To me truth, is pursuit of making sense of after "putting one's ear to the heart chamber of the world and hearing the roar of existence, the innumerable shouts of pleasure and woe". To me truth is a pursuit of meaning. And the narrative that I find meaning in is the Gospel, were all my doubts and hope meet, human misery depicted in the cross, and it's redemption in an unimaginable transformation of it.

I have no real interest in the truth pursuits of the Richard Dawkins like, or the Sam Harris like, in fact they seem strange to me, if not privileged. A search for God is not scientific pursuit for me, there is no distinction for me in a pursuit of a truth, and pursuit of God, the pursuit of meaning and hope, and the pursuit of truth. I'm not a postivist, I'm looking for a poem.

39. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200395 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 1:26 pm

AllanW on June 27, 2008 at 12:50 pm

"theIdiot;
'I'm half atheist, half Christian.'

And wholly fucked-up.

'I believe life has a meaning and purpose, or at least i want to believe it does.'

Ah! Confusion AND belief in belief. Explains a lot. You're not very old are you? [/quote]

Ah, it seems your not very old are you? And I doubt many individuals would consider me fucked up, when I'm as rational and contemplative as they come, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Rev. King once said that "Love can overcome hate", I believe this, but I am aware that this belief is derived more so from a desire for this to be true, than a purely reasonable justification. I have doubts, such as the man who said to Jesus "I believe, help thou my unbelief".

I believe, that Justice, Love, and Hope will prevail but I'm well aware that history doesn't really teach it does, yet how we wish it to be it to be true. I believe in it by faith, not by rational justification, yet i cannot rid my doubts.

I know a mother who suffered a lot through her life, yet she seems joyful and happy. Life can deal its worst, but her hope does not fail her. She believes that a mother's tears do not go by unanswered. And what a beautiful hope if were true, and a beautiful delusion if it wasn't. How i believe it to be true, because I wish it to be true, faith makes it possible, but i have my doubts. You ever read Doestoevsky's "The Brother's Karamazov"? There's a perfect work that captures doubt and belief.

I say I'm half a christian because I desire for the Christian Gospel to be true, I'm a half an atheist because I have my doubts. I'm unsure if its a beautiful reality, or a beautiful delusion. If someone thinks they have a better classification for me, they are welcome to express it.

As Jurgen Moltmann put it: "Those who recognize God's presence in the face of God-forsaken Christ have protest atheism within themselves -- but as something they have overcome."

I just haven't overcome.

Here's Moltmann's full ariticle:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2007

40. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200365 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Shad0w:
"ANd then there is written historical evidence on the basis of the crusades and 'liberating the holy land' (although the church and the crusaders at the time had other more earthly motives.. Profit profit profit!), written evidence from those nutjobs that went and killed doctors , and bombed clinics over abortions, historical and written evidence over the burning of whitches, etc etc.

The list is really too big to mention here. All that evidence is _explicitily_ stating religious doctrine as justification of said actions. Why is it that that data is summarily dismessed i wonder?"

It's not dismissed. Atran's arguement is not whether or not religion is used as justification for said actions. Religion is used as justification for civil rights, justice for the poor, debt relief. Religion is used for the justification of war, suicide bombers, crusades.

You are confusing justification with cause. This distinction can be seen clearly in what you just said about the crusades, as liberating the holy land as justification, while the motives were earthy ones, of profit and power. What Atran addresses is that justification is not motives.

Nazism was justified as a scientific endeavor, so was eugenics. They claimed scientific justification, creationist may claim that evolution was the motive, while most of us will say that science wasn't the motive at all, even though science was used as justification.

41. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200361 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 11:54 am

Allanw: "He's a nihilist who feels so pissed-off about it he has to spread his loathing and misery around. Just ignore, there's nothing of substance in his words just a loud yawp against the world. "

NO, AllanW, I'm not a nihilist, I believe life has a meaning and purpose, or at least i want to believe it does. I have a deep love for humanity, and even disbelievers who I refer to as dipshits on forums.

I may find some of their thinking funny, and some individuals may use less vulgar terms to express their comedy, but I'm a cursing kind of dude, out of habit. I even refer to myself by the terms I use on you. And if your pussy hurt because of it, then go cry to your momma. But I tend to tone it down a bit, when I'm finished rustling a few needed feathers.

42. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200353 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 11:39 am

Stevey: "First, topics of discussion can be whatever people want them to be. Second, beliefs matter. A creationist asking questions about evolution is suspect, for example. Background is important."

Beliefs matter, dependent on topic. If I'm asking questions on evolution it would be appropriate to state I am a creationist (which I'm not), but for this discussion it's entirely irrelevant.

I seen no reason to start every post on this forum, with a disclaimer that I'm not a creationist, I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky, or a pit of fire in the mantle of the earth, or that one can prove the supernatural, all things that I've been accused of on this thread, and all things that were irrelevant to the topic.

43. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200350 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 11:29 am

Here I edited my previous post and added what follows, but I believe you may have missed it, while you were responding to my post unedited, so here it is:

Stevey: "Please could you use the correct word? The word is "conscience"."

Sure, my apologies.

Stevey: "They are all the effect of behaviour. Conscience is part of what influences behaviour."

Uhm, so is conscience a part of what influences the behavior that led to war, slavery, genocide?

If so, then are you promoting that we follow it? If not, than are you claiming that the conscious has a transcendent moral quality about it, that excludes it from promoting such things, even if such things are seen as means of survival?

44. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200347 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 11:14 am

Stevey: "Please could you use the correct word? The word is "conscience"."

Sure, my apologies.

Stevey: "They are all the effect of behaviour. Conscience is part of what influences behaviour."

Uhm, so is conscience a part of what influences the behavior that led to war, slavery, genocide?

If so, then are you promoting that we follow it? If not, than are you claiming that the conscious has a transcendent moral quality about it, that excludes it from promoting such things, even if such things are seen as means of survival?

Stevey: "You do seem to have a short memory.

You posted:
"God does not hold back individuals from loving, human natures holds them back.""

So when Einstein wrote that "God does not play dice" Do you take this to mean that Einstein believed there was a God, but he just didn't play dice in his spare time?

My own religious or non-religious beliefs are not the topic of discussions, so i don't see how they are relevant in this particular thread. Since the question deals with the role of religion on behavior, not if I personally believe or not.

But I'll tell you anyway, but don't expect me to answer a 101 questions on it. I'm half atheist, half Christian. I'm enthralled by the Christian Gospel, but I haven't committed to it. I'm stuck at beauty humiliated and crucified; on what triumphed: misery or hope. Sometimes i wake up believing, some times I don't, but I'm always reflective and captivated.

45. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200343 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 10:51 am

Diacanu

"Or you'll what, Butch? "

or the rest of my sentence, sweetie.

46. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200335 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 10:34 am

Diacanu on June 27, 2008 at 10:22 am
"It's really this simple, I'm good because I'm good, you're good because you fear an invisible man in the sky sending you to a pit of fire in the mantle of the earth."

Listen dipshit, I don't even believe in a fucking invisible man in the sky, or a pit of fire in the mantle of the earth, so what the fuck are you talking about?

And I'm pretty sure I'm good for the same reason everyone else is good, and I'm pretty sure I'm a scumbag for the same reasons everyone else is a scumbag.

So shut your ass up, before you start looking like the idiot.

Sincerely,
Scumbag.

47. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200333 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 10:27 am

Stevey: [quote] Do please rise to my intellectual challenge.

A mechanism for the action of transcendent morality please. [/quote]

Tisk, Tisk, Tisk stevey, shame on you for raising questions for arguments I never made. I ridiculed you for treating the conscious as containing some sort of transcendent notion of morality that we are to adhere to, then you turn and ask me for the mechanism for a device I never claimed or even eluded to existing? Please make sense of this for me.


[quote] Next on the request list will be a proof that a human mind can detect the supernatural. I can keep you busy for ages. [/quote]

What the fuck is this? If these are the type of questions that are suppose to keep me busy for ages, let me ask you similar ones:

Prove to me the earth is flat.

Prove to me that the moon landing was a conspiracy.

Prove to me that Martha Steward is a space alien.

They have the same damn problem stevey, none of us claimed to have such proof, nor have any of us claimed to hold such a position. And I have to wonder what was the purpose of such dimwitted questions?

48. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200327 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 10:14 am

Steveyboy: "Let me explain something to you.

1. Humans have survived for hundreds of thousands of years without hitting each other too much, as a result of conscience."

Judging that human beings are the most predatory or nature's creation, it seems we've survived by hitting each other a lot. War, Genocide, Slavery have all played as components in the survival game, are they products of our conscious as well?

"2. If you want to claim any transcendent morality that comes from God, or anywhere else, you had better give an explanation of how that actually works. I look forward to that with interest. "

Ah, dear friend, do I make any sort of case for a transcendent morality? You're the one that seems to have a faith in such a thing. Why should I listen to my conscious? Does my conscious know something I don't know? What the fuck is it anyway. If i wanna punch a man in the face for stepping on my shoes, does a little angel in my head tell me not to do so?

So please, explain more to me.

49. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200319 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 9:58 am

Phatbat: "er, no it doesn't, it's a completely seperate issue. Make the logical case if you think that is true. "

Let's take a break, if you can't figure out why this is not a separate issue, then God (or Dawkins) or your fellow disbelievers here help you. Because I'm not going to waste my time addressing this sort of stupidity. Anyone with a half a brain can figure why this is so, perhaps someone else would like to teach our poor phatbat why.

Phatbat: "seem clueless? perhaps you could explain why evolutionary explanations of our emotions exclude hatred from their explanitory power. Do we take it from this that you are a creationist and don't believe evolution happened."

Oh my fucking God! Phatbat read what I wrote again. In fact, since you don't know how to read, take it your mother and ask her to explain for you. And if your mother is as dumb as you, then go ask a HS teacher.

I swear if phatbat is a good measure of the intelligence of atheist, than you all are a sorry bunch.

And Phatbat, my child when you figure out the errors of your previous response than I'll respond.

Sincerely,
Twat

50. I believe that there is no God.

Comment #200314 by theIdiot on June 27, 2008 at 9:43 am

phatbat on June 27, 2008 at 9:01 am
"Bloody hell - this guy really knows how to come across like a twat doesn't he.

"Now, I'm not arguing my fellow dip-shits."
At least he considers himself one of us dipshits, lol"

No shit sherlock!

Ever notice I go by the name "the idiot"? Accusing everyone of being dipshits, without claiming I have the potential to be one too, would just be too cruel.

:)