A3

Dear Kally,
Please except my deepest sympathy for having to go through this living hell while growing up. Even under normal circumstances growing up can present difficulties and challenges to test a person to their limit but this is deprived of any human decency. And I am not surprised about your reaction.
Wishing you much strength and all the best in what you do.
Adriaan

Tom Sawyer

Koy,

What part of it? Since there is nothing else out there in the universe, what, other than a happy life, should be the barometer?

That's a very good point. The institution of Christianity has caused a lot of problems over the years. So, however, has the institution of Communism. They were a group of people who turned their back on the lies of religion and started a secular society. They've all turned out to be just as bad, if not worse, as any religious society. That suggests to me that the 'Christian' part of the Christian institution was pretty irrelevant to the damage that resulted from it. IMHO, it was the desire for domination and control on the part of it's members that caused the trouble and not the religious or secular nature of whatever institution did the damage.

If you're killed for being a heretic or killed for being an 'enemy of the people', you're still just as dead.

However, if I were a religious man, I'd be more than a bit pissed off at God for not stepping in and stopping some of the stuff done in his name. There never seems to be a rain of fire or plague of locusts when you really need one.

My main argument deals with religion on a personal level, not a societal one. Although the two are inevitably related, the one example of a major purely secular society that I can think of is Communism and that hasn't worked at all. There are likely others out there (note, I don't consider Western democracies to be secular societies - unfortunately), but I don't know enough about them to make any kind of intelligent point about them. Changing from a theist to atheist philosophy on a personal level, though, has worked for many people and not worked for many others. It's that which is the thrust of my posts.

---

Odemus,

That's very nice of you to say.

I look forward to debating with you in the future.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: peteyh ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, not to get into it, but there never has been a Communist nation. Neither Russia nor China, for example, are Communist except in name.

So, if all you want to know is on a personal level, then, again, I don't give a rat's ass what you believe so long as you never practice or preach it or indoctrinate others into it or otherwise attempt to influence anyone as a result of it.

If you do, expect me standing in your way to the best of my ability, is all.

Samhain

Aye, I think Marx is still rolling around in his grave. Poor sod, he got stuck almost as bad as Nietzsche.

Synaesthesia

Koyaanisqatsi,

Following that reasoning, there is no such thing as free enterprise. There is no such thing as democracy or tyranny.

What is communism but it's instantiation? Of course we cannot but admit that it could be more, but it seems somewhat silly to deny that any given theory has ever been implemented in actual systems simply because it's not what we envisioned it to be in our utopic dreams.

Doubting Didymus

That is hilarious! oh my ribs.

What about poor unfortunate Lamark?

Icarus

Odemus,

Thank you for being patient. I don't normally place such discussions as these or people as you on the back burner, but I've had a busy few days. My mother-in-law has had complications with her chemotherapy, my sister arrived back from a mission trip to Malaysia, and I found out today that my wife is pregnant with our first child. Since I don't know you, that's probably way too much information, but I don't want you to think I'm slighting you.

Anyway, my response will probably be a little unwieldy and will definitely not answer all your questions; however, it should go a long way in that direction. I spoke of a general and immediate level previously: this is the general, macro-vision of my deconversion.

I think Jesus said it best when he responded to Phillip, "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

When I was still a Christian and still preaching and teaching occasionally, I set out on a journey which, until recently, brought me and those I love little more than heartache. For some time along that journey, I had been in search of a secret too sweet to taste, too soothing to touch. I glimpsed it from afar, my own humanity oppressively restraining my wings from flight. I saw God in the distance, beckoning me to see my way through the breach, seducing me towards redemption, focusing my spiritual vision to an acuity I did not know possible. I made a vow that if it were possible to strip away every barrier that divides us, to draw a bead on love, and to commune with God in this life, I would not stop until I had found him. This was the beginning of the end.

I do not count myself among the proud, who know God in order to manipulate him. Neither do I count myself among the cowardly, who know God in order to escape him. For a long time, I simply dreamed of loving him. It wasn't as if I did not, I loved him very much; however, I recognized how much further I needed to go on my way to genuine intimacy. As I indicated in my decidedly one sided exchange with luvluv, I wanted to know God more deeply than circumstance would dictate. I did not want to examine his actions, I wanted to relate to him. And so I embraced an eccentric's dream, a thought too poetic for words. I desired to bathe in love, to immerse myself in God, to be known. I cared not that I was merely human or that the divide was allegedly insurmountable. To strip away all fear, disarm my pride, and fully realize myself in God's love became my life's aspiration. I sought a relationship with God based on nothing but love.

As you already know, I arrived at an unintended, unfamiliar destination. I was surprised to find no wizard behind the curtain. The Holy of Holies was empty. In reflection upon those turbulent days I have realized that one cannot or, perhaps more accurately, should not divorce herself from the fear and guilt that balances the distance between God and man. I found it ironic that human transgression both separates and draws humanity to God--not because it is optimal or attractive (it is decidedly repulsive)--simply because it is the only currency we have in the divine economy. We know of no other way to relate to God except in terms of our sin and his forgiveness. We do not have the capacity to know him in the fashion I desired; such aspirations transcend human experience. Not only this, but the redemptive structure of Christianity actually precludes a divine relationship in this life exempt from the fears of which I've written. This is due to the doctrine of Hell. Hell guarantees that we will not, while mortal, experience God in the manner I imagined, since all are in violation of God's law and must face a forthcoming, and therefore necessarily uncertain, destiny.

This fact, while disappointing, was not my reason for deconverting. Well that is only partially accurate. I did not deconvert on account of impatience, as if I refused to wait patiently for the resurrection. Instead, I realized that a love worth anything has no need for Hell at all; that, in fact, if Hell is required in Christian soteriology, love does not exist in it at all. A relationship that claims intimate and benevolent origin absolutely cannot be influenced by such a thing. Consequently, any unholy arrangement between man and God constructed upon a condition of eternal destiny cannot be regarded as a love relationship. It would simply be a business contract for mutual convenience.

I came to this conclusion after intense study of the dynamics of love and damnation, and upon further inference discovered that it gelled with the divine silence of which I previously wrote. When I categorically discarded fear and exchanged it for intimacy, I found there was no one there to love. Indeed, Christianity is the unholy arrangement I dare not accept. Along my journey I shaped powerful argument for why Hell cannot exist, but Christianity simply fell apart without it. Nothing lies beyond the soteriological boundaries it imposes upon its adherents. It is devoid of any true love, but not for a lack of desire or effort on the part of people like you, for instance. It is void because genuine love robs Christianity of its meaning.

Sadly, Jesus of Nazareth is the consummation of every nightmarish fear I've ever entertained of God. Envisioning his face I see the truth: if I were ever to meet God, I would only meet a man--a man who would either save me from or cast me into Hell.

"If you have seen me, you have seen the Father."

You may or may not see it, but his words to Phillip, however symbolic, are a death sentence to my spiritual world. Jesus' words, his life, and his purpose represent the horrible death of this eccentric's dreams.

This is why I go by Icarus. I looked up in wonder, pressed the threshold until I was undone. I attempted to love God. If you would really rather be happy than right, Odemus, do not love God. Fear him instead. Do not press too far.

Icarus


Hell is no way to fashion love,
Sin, salvation are all we know;
So what do we have, I cannot say,
But we certainly do not have love.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Icarus ]</p>

Kassiana

"What Atheism Has to Offer!"

Yes, fabulous prizes! --Oooh, aaaahhh.

Like this "Free thought: Learn it. Love it. Live it." T-shirt! (Gorgeous young atheist female comes out and models the shirt; numerous Net geek atheist males drool and take a five minute break from posting)

And how about this "Darwin was right!" coffee mug? It's FREE when YOU become an atheist! (Gorgeous female sips from cup; many, even females, feel the need to take a break.)

Not to mention standing in a long tradition of pissing off authority, so you have traditional support for challenging your leadership! Join Atheism within the next 15 minutes and also get a "Get Out of Hell Free" card, perfect for angering religious authority figures!

::grin:: Been thinking that since the first day of this thread, and I could no longer contain myself. Sorry. ::walks back into her container::

Odemus

Icarus,

Thankyou for taking the time to respond.I'm on a trip to Baltimore this morning.I will Respond when I get back

Walter_Mitty

Peteyh:

To many possibilities to calculate and again, I lack omniscience. If we have a person who refuses to investigate other “world-views” because it creates dissonance, I already think this makes that person narrow-minded, which makes them more likely to be less open to tolerance. But, saying this hypothetical person exits and does no harm period. Lives happy and dies happy believing his own world-view, well, then I suppose atheism has nothing for them.

The problem is, I have no way to know this. Furthermore, I am under the assumption that most atheists are pretty tolerant and tend to use reason (there is always exceptions). Therefore, I am more inclined to put my “faith” in a system that uses empiricism over one that chalks up “We Don’t Know” to some supernatural force.

I tend to operate in probability. After trying to remove my emotions from the mix and dispassionately examine both systems, I would have to choose weak atheism/agnosticism. Based simply on the notion that I think it’s more likely that an adherent of the later is much more likely to use reason and empiricism. This is not to say that Christians or theists do not use reason, but it is to say that many times they put reason on the back burner and replace it with dogma that has it’s base in a supernatural entity that is unproven.

Which ties into your Christianity/Communism comments…

First, atheism was not the driving ideology, Communism was. Second, I’m not really sure if there ever was a society totally guided by reason.

That being said, I think a lot of trouble could be avoided if people were taught a measure of skepticism. If people tended to think in terms of probability after weighing the evidence, then many of the religious or ideological wars could be avoided. True, scientists do not always agree, but when this happens they tend to side with the majority of experts as opposed to blowing someone’s head off! Also, if none can agree, suspend your judgment until facts present themselves.

Which cuts to the core of what I’m preaching:

Basically, would you want a person to buy into a system that can admit that “I don’t know”, or would you want that person to replace “I don’t know” with an unproven supernatural entity?

The other comment I have to make is on the Communism v. Christianity debate. In both cases the groups suspended reason. The former for ideology and the later for supernatural dictates that were based on a supposedly divine text. In both cases they were wrong and I would protest both of them. True there were “Good or True” ® Christians that protested. True there were good Russians who also protested. But I would argue that those who protested used their reason.

This is why I still think Christianity (or theism) is bad, despite the good Christians that do exist. True there are Christians who help the poor, fought for abolition, etc. But some of their fellow brothers still seem to suspend reason, despite their example. I feel this is due to putting one's faith into a book that is beleived to be from God, when in fact, I think it's just a product of man.

Take slavery: there are Bible verses that one could use to advocate it. One group of Christians thought that this book should be followed word-for-word, so, they suspended their reason, and used this divine dictate as one possible justification for slavery. The second group applied a little common sense (aka reason) and realized that slavery was bad and worked to combat it.

Therein lies the rub! Where do we draw the line? Do we do away with Christianity because some of the liberal denominations are more likely to use reason? Or, do we, every time their fundamentalist brethren toss reason out the window, shake our heads and say: “but what about Bob, he does not believe those verses. He is a good man and has done xyz for the poor.”

I know your dealing with theism on the micro level but I can’t look at it without taking into account the big historical picture. Furthermore, there are still examples today where theists replace reason with “divine dictates” and when that happens, the body count sure does seem to rise. When is the last time you heard of a group of atheistic scientists who decided to fly a plane into a skyscraper?

For the sake of philosophical discussion, I think your asking a question that cannot be realistically answered on the mirco level. Though I must admit, it was a good question to chew on!

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Bibliophile ]</p>