rainbow walking

mike: rw, you seem to suggest that animosity stems from something inherent in religion. I suggest that animosity stems from something that goes much deeper than religion or science or politics: A struggle between two ideologies, two views of man. One view suggests that your life means my death, your success my failure. The other view suggests that life begets life, and success begets success. As long as the first view exists there will be strife in politics, science and religion.

rw: Hi Mike, I was beginning to think I lost you. Animosity…? Where does animosity begin? What triggers it? You say it’s a struggle between opposing views and go on to describe those views as being based on different manifestations of competition. Perhaps you and I are still competing for a source of this animosity.

Competition, itself, is not a moral concept. It is an affirmation of our nature. Our genetics endow us with a competitive spirit to facilitate our continued survival. We are mortal creatures born into a world of many potential deaths. We compete against our own mortality to survive as long as possible. People compete in sports and in politics and in business. America competed with the former USSR to put a man on the moon. Competition is a motivator, to be sure…and all motivators can be manipulated. But we must delve beneath the motivators and look for the levers of manipulation.

Beneficial competition is ethical competition. That’s why every competitive sport has rules. Destructive competition ensues when someone begins to break the rules. So we are inevitably led to the rules and the source of those rules to find the levers of manipulation. But before we get into that let’s consider this:
Theism is a methodology to influence man’s natural ability to think by compelling him to think within a specific pattern of thoughts, thus it is competing for control of man’s mind in order to both harness its power and harvest its potential. Man is not born into this world as a theist, thus theism is further competing with man’s natural inclinations. This is true of all ideologies. Man is born tabula rasa endowed only with natural abilities. Thus theism is not exempt from the competition. Various persuasions of theism further compete for the minds of men who have already accepted the basic tenets that compelled him to join his mind to the collective minds of all theists. The competition runs many layers deep within theism, as it does in all ideologies.

Theism, as an ideology, exists in a world of other competing ideologies and a world of inter-competing ideologies. Thus each ideology is forced to compete with a convincing argument for the control of man’s mind. This competition is unavoidable. It is self-negating to damn competition as the source of all antagonism because the minute you open your mouth to do so you are competing with other ideologies that believe competition is the only viable means of bringing out the best in man, as well as the worst. Competition is unavoidable because it is axiomatic to man’s nature as a mortal being which is why he is endowed with a competitive spirit from the womb.

Now you may advance the argument that convincing man of an after and before life will eliminate the need for competition but to do so, you will have to compete with other ideologies to get your point across, thus you are again caught up in the axiom of competition. So let us dispense with this notion that competition is the source of man’s problems. If you have an ideology worthy of being shared you will have to compete with other ideologies that believe, just as fervently as you do, that their ideology is equally worthy of being shared. Your argument against competition does not exempt you from the competition if you wish to advance it. This is a rule you cannot change until everyone agrees with you it aught to be changed, but to get everyone’s agreement you have to present a convincing competitive argument to support your ideology.

So let’s examine the basic tenets of this argument for theistic ideology. Perhaps in the examination we’ll find some levers of manipulation that allow antagonistic manipulators access to resources they aught be deprived of if we wish to dispel their antagonisms.

I have examined the basic tenets of practically all popular persuasions of theism and found that they all begin with the introduction of some sort of ideal being or beings, whether it be a god, gods, goddess, or a state of mind or being.
They each then proceed in their arguments to either imply or explicitly state that these ideal beings or states are not equivalent to man or his state of being.

A comparison is made or implied and man is declared to be lacking in some quality that distinguishes him from these ideals. Thus man is declared intrinsically worthless.
Then their argument proceeds to imply or state that man is somehow similar to the ideal and from this similarity man acquires an intrinsic value. So man is intrinsically valued and worthless in the same argument.

Their argument then proceeds on the basis that man’s intrinsic worthlessness disqualifies him from ever attaining worth by his own efforts and any attempt to do so is futile. From this point forward they argue that only their respective methodology will ensure man a transition from worthlessness to value. This is usually described as “The Way” or “The Path” or “Salvation”.
They always promise some sort of rewards, some to be acquired in this life and some beyond the grave. These are the basic tenets upon which practically all religions turn and from which they all form their respective arguments or “callings”, and fall under the general heading of theism, even though some of them try to find ways to exempt themselves from this general heading.
But all ideologies rise up and proceed on the basis that something is wrong with something and present a solution. This is true in politics, economics, in all of man’s endeavors competing ideologies always arise. Theism, however, points to the source of this “wrongness” as being intrinsic to man himself.

You have argued, in our last two exchanges, that competition is the worst manifestation of man’s inherent wrongness. Yet competition is inescapable. If man isn’t competing with others, he’s competing with himself. If not himself or others, he competes with nature. If you decide you need to dig a hole two foot deep in the ground, you take a shovel and enter into competition with the earth to force a hole where one did not previously exist. But man can dig a hole for himself with unbridled competition. So we must consider the other side of this coin: Cooperation.

Every ideology is built on something being wrong that needs addressing. If an ideology is argued successfully, if something really is wrong that needs addressing and that ideology has a convincing argument that adherence to its philosophy might indeed address the wrong, it begins to attract constituents, followers, adherents who cooperate with its tenets to address the wrong. The basic wrong, which drives all of man’s competition and cooperation is his mortality. From his mortality comes the desire to exist and to ensure continued existence. Thus man began to form cooperative societies to ensure this outcome. But man is not born with automatic knowledge of how to best secure his continued survival. He must learn. Out of this learning process comes many mistakes and wrong decisions from which spring competing ideologies and all are competing for one thing: The chance to run the show. All cooperative enterprises turn on rules. All friendly competitive enterprises turn on rules. All ideologies are competing to establish the rules. Some compete to establish rules of personal conduct, others to establish rules for warfare and expansionism, but all ideologies are competing for the cooperation of man’s mind to establish rules.

Why, because he who establishes the rules, governs. Ideology is all about the control of man’s existence. Now you may argue that theism is not an ideology of governance, but you would be hard pressed to win such an argument. Just like all ideologies compete, the strongest ideologies have learned to cooperate with other, stronger ideologies to survive. In some nations theistic ideologies already govern. In other, secular nations, theistic ideologies cooperate with stronger political ideologies and ensure themselves a role in governance. All ideologies are designed to set the rules and thereby govern those who have agreed to cooperate with those rules. Revolution within ideologies is about a changing of the governing authorities and often is followed by a change in the rules. What drives men to govern and be governed, to compete and to cooperate? One thing: Mortality. If we can come to this mutual understanding we have a basis to proceed.

All ideologies are about the control of man’s mind and seek voluntary cooperation while competing with other ideologies for survival and greater influence. All such endeavors are about one thing: Governance. Competition for goods and supplies is not the driving force of ideologies, competition for control of men’s minds are. If an aggressor nation militarily invades another nation and wins the war, it now has the authority to establish the rules under which the conquered must either cooperate with or rebel against and possibly die in the process. Most perpetrators, guided by their ideologies, are not concerned with the immediate collateral damage. They reason that after a few generations all rebellion will be either bred or rooted out of the conquered and the prevailing ideology wins. This is why the Iraqi’s didn’t have a chance against Hussein. Any resources acquired in the conquest are incidental to the ideology which drove the invasion. Control a man’s mind and you control all future production of goods and services.

Once we’ve established this precept and understand what’s at stake in the proliferation of an ideology we can then find its levers of manipulation. Something is wrong and an ideology has arisen to define it and prescribe a solution. But this is just a smokescreen to secure cooperation for future competition. Beneath the hubris is a desire by someone or group to control the game and change the rules.

Theism has no monopoly on this market, yet theism is not without its methods of assuring cooperation in the rank and file. Excommunication and dis-fellowship and defrocking and pulling of licenses are just a few that come to mind. A prevailing ideology must have a means of preserving itself from internal competitive ideologies that would arise to threaten its authority. So competing ideologies splinter off and form competing ideologies from without and diffuse the power of the prevailing ideology. Man lives in a constant turmoil of cooperation and competition created by his own mortality.

Something is wrong and needs addressing. Is it an intrinsic wrong in man or an inherent wrong in man’s state of existence into which he is born? Jesus said, “Leave him be, whoever is not against us is for us.” He was about the business of establishing the kingdom of god…on earth. He was very astute in not allowing his disciples to make enemies where none need be made. The person to whom he was referring was complying with his ideology, in Jesus’ name or under the authority of his name, without express permission. That is what ideologies do best. They make enemies where none existed before. If you treat a man as an enemy it is certain he will never be for you. I am of the opinion there is something inherently wrong with all of man’s ideologies, they all create enemies among one another where none need be. Theism is a classic example.

Having convinced a man of his intrinsic wrongness and his inability of making himself right and such a man joins himself, his mind, to your ideology, his intrinsic value has now been justified and he is no longer intrinsically wrong. Thus everyone around him who has not joined their minds to your ideology are still living in a state of intrinsic wrongness.

The dichotomy is inescapable. The effects are almost immediate. Everyone who is not for you is against you.







mike: Your argument is not simply with religion, but with a doctrine of competition. This doctrine stems from a belief in limited resources. And as you already have pointed to the possibility of finding other worlds (as have religionists), and other resources, to a potentially unlimited quantity, I assume you do not believe in limited resources. If this is true, you cannot truly believe in competition as a means for survival, but must in fact agree that cooperation is more efficacious.

In order to find such a transcendent solution as you seem to hope for, we must first recognize that the problems of war, violence, and compulsion go deeper than not only any one religion, but go deeper than "religion" (and science, and politics) in general. If we assume the problem stems alone from religion we will miss the mark. The reason is this: Man's institutions are not simply causes, but more accurately symptoms. Religious doctrine cannot be pointed to as a cause of discord, but only as a symptom of underlying discord--if, that is, such doctrine correlates at all (positively) with discord. Correlation is not causation.

rw: Competition and cooperation are different sides of the same coin, inter-dependant and are not doctrines but states of behavior. I am seeking an exposure of the levers of manipulation that facilitate antagonism and disrespect that lead to bloodletting. All ideologies have commonalities such that an exposure in one often means an exposure in all.

mike: We agree that doctrines can often be wrested both to peaceful or violent ends. The two notable exceptions are the doctrines of competition vs. cooperation. The former can never lead to peace, and the latter can never lead to war.

rw: I suggest you think again on this. No weapon of war is formed without the cooperation of its warriors. No resolution of peace can be reached without competition with warring ideologies.

mike: How then can any other less absolute doctrine be pointed to as a cause? If I am wrong, name the more fundamental doctrines then these; the clearer, the less susceptible to interpretation and I will consider them. Don't point to the vagueness of lesser doctrines as a cause for violence. Their vagueness is but blank canvases on which to paint our underlying beliefs. We project our desires and beliefs onto such doctrinal canvases, but there are two doctrines that can never be misinterpreted: Competition/hate, and cooperation/love. A blank canvas is not a cause of the painting being made upon it, but simply a place upon which we may paint. "Religion" is but one of multiple canvases (science and politics are others). This is the reason that when asked which were the greatest commandments (doctrines), Christ replied that Love comes in both first and second place. Love of God with all our hearts; which corresponds with a love of neighbor as of self. If we will truly follow either commandment we will, we must, follow both. You cannot love the Father and hate the children, nor love the children and hate the Father. Adherence to these fundamental doctrines is how you will know true religion, and true spirituality, when you find it. Don't you see how the core of true religion, loving your neighbor as yourself, is incompatible with all the wars of false religion? It is a lack of religion, a failure of it, that leds to these "religious" wars--not religion's success. Religion's success would be peace on earth.

rw: I think you have confused my reference to religion with your specific variety. Theism, in general, is an ideology that has splintered into many lesser ideologies. What I see is a man wrestling with the demons inherent in all ideologies. A man passionately arguing a competing ideology while decrying competition; A man progressing the promises while denying the cost. I have already conceded that there is value added worth in the ideology of theism but it comes with a price that we must allow ourselves to examine. Blaming natural behavioral states of being brings us no closer to the obvious. Even if the entire world agreed to comply you couldn’t exist without competition and you couldn’t engender full cooperation because man is not a perfect being. The imperfections will always find their way to the surface and have to be addressed and someone will invent a new ideology for the addressing and the entire process will begin anew. The question I bring to the table is: Are the imperfections evidence of an intrinsic wrongness in man? Be careful how you answer.

Spenser

You've never once backed your assertion or showed us this standard of morality that you claim is universal. Where is this standard and why doesn't it seem to apply to abortion, euthanasia, watching porn, prostitution and a number of other things people argue about? Saying 'murder' and 'rape' just proves my point that you are appealing to the emotions. Same with your cannibal story. The immorality of it is merely subjective and though you and I may be disgusted by it, there were obviously many who weren't. You condition a child from birth to eat other people and they will never have that prick of conscious. If all you can say is 'put justifiable homicide aside', only look at examples that go your way, well you are retreating into the shadows much like God has been doing through human history...

Edited to add:

PS I forgot to mention: Male lions when taking over a pride murder existing cubs already in the pride. An act that most would find immoral yet because it is animals its OK. Our human arrogance demonstrates the subjectiveness of our own morals...

Mike

rw: Hi Mike, I was beginning to think I lost you. Animosity…? Where does animosity begin? What triggers it?



mike: Not lost, just busy. I think animosity is triggered by ignorance. We see death, we assume it is the end because we don't know any better, we cannot fathom ceasing to have the freedom and opportunity that now presents itself to us, ceasing to exist, so we struggle against real and imagined threats to our autonomy (life and/or choice). If we knew for certain what lay beyond the grave, if anything, perhaps we would behave differently. Perhaps ignorance is the impetus both for a drive for freedom and for a drive to compete. Hmm. Let me think on that.

rw: Perhaps you and I are still competing for a source of this animosity.

mike: Perhaps because we are ignorant of each other's intentions. Perhaps because we are ignorant of each other's perspectives.

rw: Competition, itself, is not a moral concept. It is an affirmation of our nature. Our genetics endow us with a competitive spirit to facilitate our continued survival. We are mortal creatures born into a world of many potential deaths. We compete against our own mortality to survive as long as possible.

mike: This is the doctrine of which I was speaking. And I disagree that it is an affirmation of our nature. If I must compete in order to survive then implicit in that paradigm is the thought that only those who compete survive. As war is at the core a competition, this would explain war adequately, parsimoniously, and logically. If this is the case then we can stop blaming religion, and blame genetics instead.

rw: People compete in sports and in politics and in business. America competed with the former USSR to put a man on the moon. Competition is a motivator, to be sure…and all motivators can be manipulated. But we must delve beneath the motivators and look for the levers of manipulation.

mike: I agree that motivators can be manipulated, but if the motivator is the idea that your life means my death, how many ways can that be manipulated? Let's see, we could make each other die a painful, or a painless death. That's about it.

I'm not necessarily talking about competition in sports or business, although there are certainly examples of violence done there (especially when business or sports are seen as the only means of survival for the participants--there are some who play for food, and others who play for fun--the latter enjoy the game whether they "win" or "lose"). I am talking about having a core belief that I must compete for SURVIVAL.

rw: Beneficial competition is ethical competition. That’s why every competitive sport has rules. Destructive competition ensues when someone begins to break the rules. So we are inevitably led to the rules and the source of those rules to find the levers of manipulation.

mike: And those who recognize sports as a game and not as fundamental to their survival will abide by the rules. Those who believe their livelihood is at stake are the one's getting in fights, hiring hitmen to break knees of competitors, illegally betting on their own games, paying off judges, etc.

rw: But before we get into that let’s consider this:
Theism is a methodology to influence man’s natural ability to think by compelling him to think within a specific pattern of thoughts,

mike: True religion has no need for compulsion. Indeed, it is considered antithetical. Persuasion has little to do with compulsion.

rw: thus it is competing for control of man’s mind in order to both harness its power and harvest its potential.

mike: If control is the motive then you would be correct in censuring "theism," but control is not an inevitable motive of theism. In fact the doctrine of Christ has everything to do with letting go of the need to control, as I have said. Those who sought to control (the pharisees) were seen as misguided.

rw: Man is not born into this world as a theist, thus theism is further competing with man’s natural inclinations.

mike: This statement is pure assumption. I believe the opposite. The state of pure dependence on a "higher power" (parent) in which we find ourselves as infants is directly analogous to theology's doctrine of dependence on God.

rw: This is true of all ideologies. Man is born tabula rasa endowed only with natural abilities.

mike: Not so. We are born completely unable to compete, and only able to trust our mothers and cooperate with those responsible for our care. Competition must be taught, not cooperation. As infants we must cooperate to survive, and our survival is almost entirely out of our hands. That we must open our mouths to receive our sustenance is true--this is where free will comes in. But we are dependent on the sustenance being offered to us by another. Thus Jesus admonished his followers to become as a little child, and asserted that "of such is the kingdom of heaven." Once again, a failure to follow this truth (our true natures) is a cause of conflict. Successfully following this theistic truth is antithetical to war.

rw: Theism, as an ideology, exists in a world of other competing ideologies and a world of inter-competing ideologies.

mike: True enough as we are taught the false doctrine of competition, but "in the beginning" there was only the child and the parent. The one entirely dependent on the other. The other employing its very existence so the one can live.

rw: This competition is unavoidable...Competition is unavoidable because it is axiomatic to man’s nature as a mortal being which is why he is endowed with a competitive spirit from the womb.

mike: Again, this is assumption. All that we know for sure is that the child is dependent on the parent. And if the child lives, it is because in some measure the parent has given of themself to the child, and the child has accepted. All we have evidence for from the womb is that for two to survive there must be cooperation. Of course for only one to survive, cooperation is unnecessary.

rw: It is self-negating to damn competition as the source of all antagonism because the minute you open your mouth to do so you are competing with other ideologies that believe competition is the only viable means of bringing out the best in man, as well as the worst.

mike: Again, when a child is conceived and born there is only one ideology. That of cooperation. An ideology that exists primarily, and independent, and fundamental is not truly in competition with ideologies that are developed subsequently. The second may be in competition with the first, but the first by continuing to exist is not unavoidably in competition with the second.

rw: Now you may advance the argument that convincing man of an after and before life will eliminate the need for competition but to do so, you will have to compete with other ideologies to get your point across, thus you are again caught up in the axiom of competition.

mike: Whether or not there is an after or before life, the fundamental question of survival is whether there is enough to go around. And whether we must fight for limited resources, or work together to access greater and ulitimately unlimited resources.

rw: I have examined the basic tenets of practically all popular persuasions of theism and found that they all begin with the introduction of some sort of ideal being or beings, whether it be a god, gods, goddess, or a state of mind or being.
They each then proceed in their arguments to either imply or explicitly state that these ideal beings or states are not equivalent to man or his state of being.

mike: This is nothing more or less than the state we find ourselves in as an infant. There is an ideal being or beings present the moment we exit the womb. The parent or parents. We find ourselves dependent on these more powerful beings, we see that we are less capable, that we have fewer choices, and thus we try to emulate them. Theology is nothing more or less than the natural state of mankind at birth.

rw: A comparison is made or implied and man is declared to be lacking in some quality that distinguishes him from these ideals.

mike: And the child thinks: They can walk, I cannot. They can drive, I cannot. They can feed themselves, I cannot.

rw: Thus man is declared intrinsically worthless.

mike: This is an illogical leap. Some religionists erroneously take this belief. But children do not give themselves up as worthless unless they are explicitly taught to do so. Their natural inclination is to try to be like their parent. To become "heirs of God and Joint-heirs with Christ."

rw: Then their argument proceeds to imply or state that man is somehow similar to the ideal and from this similarity man acquires an intrinsic value. So man is intrinsically valued and worthless in the same argument.

mike: A child sees that they are like their parents in many ways. And they see that they are becoming more so as time passes. From the womb a child's capabilities progress at an astounding rate. And observation of a child reveals that the child seems to derive enormous pleasure from these successes that bring them ever closer to the ideal. In addition, the child immediately sees that the parent responds to their call. They make a petition (sometimes very loudly), and the parent responds with food and comfort, care and protection. Having such a powerful being respond to your request instills an intrinsic sense of worth. If THEY think I am worth it then I must be worth it. Intrinsic worth as a religious value stems from a natural parent-child relationship. Worthlessness is a component of false religion--as it is antithetical to the parental care necessary for survival of the child.

rw: Their argument then proceeds on the basis that man’s intrinsic worthlessness disqualifies him from ever attaining worth by his own efforts and any attempt to do so is futile. From this point forward they argue that only their respective methodology will ensure man a transition from worthlessness to value. This is usually described as “The Way” or “The Path” or “Salvation”.

mike: Again, you are describing a false theology. The child sees that at first they cannot feed themselves. They are dependent on the parent for food, but not worthless. First the parent's attention testifies of their worth, and secondly they realize that though the food is given, they must open their mouths and suck! We are not at a loss to effect our salvation. And a sense of self-efficacy begins with the first mouthful of milk that responds to our suck. Without the parent, our survival is impossible. Thus, salvation is by grace. But unless we receive the proffered gift, we will starve in spite of grace. Thus James says "faith without works is dead," and show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. Without the parent, the infant dies, but without opening the mouth to suck the infant dies just as surely.

rw: But all ideologies rise up and proceed on the basis that something is wrong with something and present a solution. This is true in politics, economics, in all of man’s endeavors competing ideologies always arise. Theism, however, points to the source of this “wrongness” as being intrinsic to man himself.

mike: This is an overgeneralization as I have shown. Scriptural works from Hindu, Judeo-Christian, and Islamic traditions all point to the parent metaphor of God. All give examples of God's worth-affirming condescension to man. As a parent stoops to meet the gaze of the infant, so Christ figures in theology stoop to meet the gaze of their spiritual children. This affirms our value. As a parent holds out their hand, but expects the child to take a step toward them; God offers to lift us, but requires us to step toward him. To grow we must both emulate the parent, and accept the gifts that are given in spite of our weakness. We both acknowledge our dependence, and our responsibility to grow by making efforts to meet the outstretched hands of our parents.

rw: If man isn’t competing with others, he’s competing with himself. If not himself or others, he competes with nature. If you decide you need to dig a hole two foot deep in the ground, you take a shovel and enter into competition with the earth to force a hole where one did not previously exist.

mike: This is one story, but it is just a story. I see competition with man, self, or the earth as illusory. When I dig a hole, the earth in the hole yeilds to my shovel and I pile it high and make a mountain and valley where once it was plain. I compete only within my own false notions. Truth cannot compete with truth, and Truth as fundamental, first, and everlasting need not compete with the illusions that come and go with time.


rw: Theism has no monopoly on this market, yet theism is not without its methods of assuring cooperation in the rank and file. Excommunication and dis-fellowship and defrocking and pulling of licenses are just a few that come to mind.

mike: Excommunication is not coersion. It is simple disassociation. As long as a person is free to engage on the terms set by a group, or disengage at will--if they find the terms are unacceptable--then freedom is preserved. Knowing the rules of a group, we excommunicate ourselves if we chose not to abide by them. Resisting excommunication is no more a sign of wrongness than is insisting on playing soccer on a baseball diamond when the referee has asked you to play elsewhere. There is room, and to spare, but the diamond has a purpose of its own. Soccer players are not intrinsically wrong, but for one to play soccer while their teammates play baseball would be quite a trick.

rw: I suggest you think again on this. No weapon of war is formed without the cooperation of its warriors. No resolution of peace can be reached without competition with warring ideologies.

mike: I still disagree. Weapons of war can be formed by a single warrior, and peace can be attained by simply being.

rw: The question I bring to the table is: Are the imperfections evidence of an intrinsic wrongness in man? Be careful how you answer.

mike: What you call imperfection is what I call developmental incompleteness. A child may be perfect in form, substance, and perhaps in intention, but its development is incomplete.

Cross Examiner

We're talking past each other. Good place to begin anew: Does evil exist or not? The meat of the matter.

Good acknowledgement. Where did your personal revulsion to child-rape come from?

Attempts by a perpetrator at justification (happens every time) does not make the wrong subjective, in fact, the reason most perpetrators feel a need to justify certain behaviors at all speaks to the inward discomfort they feel. Animals, finite material beings without soul-like qualities, have no such deducible compulsion. Wouldn't it stand to reason that they too would have evolved a conscience, a limit to their own antisocial behaviors? Yet they haven't...

And about my species...did someone reason his way into the necessity of a conscience, as a program for society's good and it just somehow spread to every tribe and tongue? And this is more reasonable than an in-born revulsion to gratuitous evil?

Really, this question is a by-product of another, namely: does God exist? If evil is "morally reprehensible; causing discomfort or repulsion; causing harm; and marked by misfortune" then it is simply the absence of good. What then is good? Ye Olde Dictionary says good is: "of a favorable character". If God, by definition is the most favorable character that can be conceived (and then some), exists then evil, the absence of this absolute character necessarily exists also. The overwhelming insistence by nearly everyone across all-time that evil exists suggests the issue is prima facie, creating a burden of proof for the one who suggests otherwise.

ImGod

Oh ye of silly faith. The answer is no.

I'll play the definition game. [Making a great leap of faith in the actual existance of invisible creatures.] Based on the accounts of the bible I say God is one of the least favorable characters out there. My what large character flaws they list in that book. Therefore, we can define he/she/it as evil. Therefore, that which is not God is by definition good.

Ha, Ha. Good one. Lots of people believe it so it must be true. Never heard that one before.

How about evil is not a "thing" but a construct of society. That's why serial killing is "evil", but capital punishment killing is "good". Society defines somethings as bad, somethings as good, somethings as sort of good, or sort of bad, or who cares doesn't affect me.

Cross Examiner

Mr. ImGod:

Touché.

Game. Set. Match.

We're moving from the ideological notion of God to the Biblical? The Biblical needs contextualization in order to reconcile it well with my ideological definition of God as Good Incarnate. It's your can of worms so I'll let you start. How, as depicted in the Bible, is God unjustifiably evil?

And you've yet to hear it; careful, careful my corn-husking friend! Note I did not say: alot of people believe it so it must be true. Read it again and then tell me what I wrote. {Hint: the second clause is very important}

Yeah, that's what Spenser said. You two must have read the same book. How did society construct the conscience that causes an innate revulsion (which he helped me demonstrate) towards gratuitous evil? A "thing", as you put it, like evil exists. Evil exists. It is a prima facie assertion akin to: love exists. Intuitively deduced. No algorithm or proton smasher need apply. Only the most contrary, rabid minority of the already small atheist cloister insist otherwise--which speaks volumes on the irrestability of the existence of evil. Now to the point: since evil exists, objective morals exist.

Spenser

Talk about a cop out. I ask you to back up your assertions, :boohoo: actually go over this standard of morality you cling to, and you instead try to switch the burden of proof to me. You did exactly what I said, you're retreating from the argument. Lets' continue to counter your points while you just make more assertions :boohoo: :

I've been over the natural selection thing before, but even so, what does it matter? You support my argument just fine by saying 'your personal'. Subjective!

Who said they attempt to justify them? I gave examples that demonstrate subjectivity. Saying 'does not make the wrong subjective' is another assertion. :boohoo: Nothing more than your opinion, even if others share this opinion. In fact the whole quote is an assertion. :boohoo: Are we all supposed to accept this only because you say so?

Assertion! :boohoo: Please provide evidence for or at least a good definition for 'soul-like' qualities.



No. A 'conscience' is advantageous to huge populations / societies. Much like primitive hunter gathers who murdered other humans over competition show the opposite of much of what we would consider moral today. It was more advantageous to spread your own genes however possible in hunter gatherer times. Killing lion cubs immediately puts the females in heat and the new male / males begin to spread their genes instead. The behaviors vary from animal to animal depending on which (behaviors) are more advantageous to those particular animals...

You talk about this as if it all happened overnight. Perhaps this is the same reasoning that makes it difficult for theists to grasp the concept of evolution. It is far more reasonable than an 'in-born' revulsion to gratuitous evil. You still haven't even offered up any evidence that 'gratuitous' evil exists.

Another example:

My niece, born and raised in LA is now 7. She cries if she sees a dead cat in the road and thinks it is absolutely disgusting to shoot a bird or any animal for that matter. My cousin, same age, grew up on a ranch in the Antelope Valley. Not only has he helped slaughter chickens and pigs; he takes his bee-bee gun out and kills birds for fun. Neither ones thoughts on the killing of these animals were 'in-born'.

Furthermore, how come you nor any other theist will attempt to push the moral standard on subjects like abortion, euthanasia, prostitution, drug use, pornography???? Oh, appeals to the emotions aren't as effective when the odds are even. Where is your 'absolute morality' here? Apparently this absolute standard only applies to things a greater majority of people consider 'wrong'.

Assertion,:boohoo: assertion,:boohoo: assertion.:boohoo: The fact that 'nearly everyone' across all-time cannot even agree on what all is evil and what all is not only further demonstrates its subjectivity and is better evidence that evil is a byproduct of humanity, hence not created until Homo Sapiens had evolved for tens of thousands of years. Trying to switch the burden of proof because you can't demonstrate 'absolute morality' is a sleight-of-hand maneuver that doesn't float here.

Once again, please show us all this standard of morality you continue to appeal to. Provide evidence for absolute morality. Please, no more assertions without backing them up...

NonContradiction

If we accept the principle that it's good for the tribe to survive, then it logically follows that breathing would be a moral thing to do.

Furthermore, it would be moral for members of the tribe to be concerned about having clean air to breathe. Anyone who could provide innovative ideas to clean the air we breathe, or minimize pollution, would obviously be engaging in moral behavior.

The same that holds true for breathing also holds true for eating and drinking.

So what? If preservation of the species is good, then whatever would lead to preservation of the species would be moral - sex, breathing, eating, and drinking included.

You have already said this before, but so far you haven't explained why you hold this view. Perhaps you don't believe that preservation of the species is good?

No one is asserting that all acts have a level of morality attached to them. If you want to assert that heterosexual behavior isn't moral, then you are going to have to support that assertion. I have already told you why I think that it is moral.

Again, this question is irrelevant to the one that I am asking. We are not talking about donating sperm to a sperm bank, which is a completely different question. We are comparing heterosexual behavior with homosexual behavior - are the two equal?

You are correct. Society in general doesn't treat the two equally. However, the homosexual political agenda calls for society to treat the two equally. Therefore, the question becomes why should society do that if they are not equal?

Your strategy, so far, has been to deny that heterosexual behavior is moral behavior, but I think that you are going to have a tough time defending that position.

rainbow walking

rw: Maybe even an impetus for a drive to invent ad hoc explanations for the unknown…yes?

mike: Perhaps because we are ignorant of each other's intentions. Perhaps because we are ignorant of each other's perspectives.

rw: I thought I made both very clear.

mike: This is the doctrine of which I was speaking. And I disagree that it is an affirmation of our nature. If I must compete in order to survive then implicit in that paradigm is the thought that only those who compete survive.

rw: It is an inescapable axiom of existence. If you don’t compete, someone has to compete for you, if you continue to survive. Even Paul had to issue the edict that a man who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat. What do you think work is but a form of competition.

mike: As war is at the core a competition, this would explain war adequately, parsimoniously, and logically. If this is the case then we can stop blaming religion, and blame genetics instead.

rw: Mortality is the root cause. Genetics is a coded affirmation of mortality. Competition is anticipated by genetics and successful methods are coded in. Replication is one method. Survival drives are another. We must progress our examinations beyond the inescapable and examine how we’ve expressed our competitiveness through various ideologies. We must examine the fabric of ideology for the flaws that continually expose us to bloodletting. Some aspects of what we expose about the ideology of religion, if true, will apply equally to all ideologies. Some may be specific to theism.

mike: I agree that motivators can be manipulated, but if the motivator is the idea that your life means my death, how many ways can that be manipulated? Let's see, we could make each other die a painful, or a painless death. That's about it.

I'm not necessarily talking about competition in sports or business, although there are certainly examples of violence done there (especially when business or sports are seen as the only means of survival for the participants--there are some who play for food, and others who play for fun--the latter enjoy the game whether they "win" or "lose"). I am talking about having a core belief that I must compete for SURVIVAL.

rw: That is not a core belief, but an inescapable fact of our existence. Your belief is irrelevant. Whether you compete at the top or the bottom of the social structure…compete you will.

mike: And those who recognize sports as a game and not as fundamental to their survival will abide by the rules. Those who believe their livelihood is at stake are the one's getting in fights, hiring hitmen to break knees of competitors, illegally betting on their own games, paying off judges, etc.

rw: Yet there are two inescapable axioms: competition and rules. Science is about learning the rules of nature to allow us more productive competition. The rules of nature are supreme inviolate laws that dominate our existence. The rules of man are not equal or capable of superceding the rules of nature but must exist in compliance and cooperation with them. Any ideological construct that ignores this simple rule will always end in disaster.

Nature has determined that man must be free enough to make choices about his own personal existence. Any ideology that infringes on this edict will fail for man. Nature has determined that man’s existence is a value worthy of sustaining. Any ideology that violates this edict conflicts with man’s nature. Any ideology that teaches man otherwise is creating a monster, a contorted mass of muscle and cognitive dissonance that behaves irrationally. Man cannot be taught there is something intrinsically wrong with him unless there really is something intrinsically wrong with him. To do so is to teach a lie, a falsehood that will actually produce what it purports to remedy.

A man who embraces this teaching as true will sentence himself to a life of struggling against his own nature. He cannot help but to reflect that which he believes is true about himself. He will live and behave as if there is an intrinsic wrongness within him that he cannot avoid. He will attribute every failure to this wrongness, accept the blame, and surrender his value rather than seek a remedy to the cause of his failure. Such a man becomes a product of this ideology and will come to believe he has no choice but to follow its doctrines if he ever hopes to become a value worthy of preserving. If the doctrines of this ideology are hard to be understood or impossible to practice fully, he will comply when confronted and cheat whenever he can and thus confine himself to a life of guilt and shame and confusion.

You mentioned under-developed, this is an accurate description of such a man. He will remain so all his life because the ideology he has embraced has taken him back in his nature to a point before self-value had arisen. He is struggling to evolve beyond the level of an amoeba while trying to exist in a world designed by men.

When such an ideology has been spread out over thousands of generations and taught to practically every man and woman as though it were true, it is no wonder we see man walking on the moon along side men burying the bodies of their victims in the basement of their houses. The one, walking on the moon, was made possible by men dedicated to, and in compliance with, their nature. The other was made possible by an ideology that, through centuries of practice, has facilitated the divorcing of man from his nature.

But man, caught up in this generation, cannot see this clearly. All he sees is the mass of confusion and conflicting ideologies, each holding out an ideal and proclaiming there is something wrong with man or his state of existence. He hardly ever realizes the ideologies are responsible for the mass of confusion.

Man’s best course today is to reject all such ideologies and make his own way. There is no ideal that fits the individual value of all men…how could there be? To accept such a claim is to reject one’s individuality. The framers of our constitution were wise enough to recognize this truth and began the preamble, “In order to form a more perfect union…”. They knew better than to create an ideology based on the unattainable. Better, they reasoned, for man to strive for more perfection than a final product. Better still, they reasoned, to affirm the perfection already attained, than to re-invent the wheel. This is why political ideologies in the free world have grown to over-shadow religious ideologies. This is why separation of church and state is necessary but still not complete.

mike: True religion has no need for compulsion. Indeed, it is considered antithetical. Persuasion has little to do with compulsion.

rw: “Go ye into the highways and byways and compelthem…” Any persuasive argument has the power to compel.

mike: If control is the motive then you would be correct in censuring "theism," but control is not an inevitable motive of theism. In fact the doctrine of Christ has everything to do with letting go of the need to control, as I have said. Those who sought to control (the pharisees) were seen as misguided.

rw: Control is the inevitable end of all ideologies that begin with an ideal Mike. To say otherwise is to deny history, Constantine, Roman Catholicism, the Crusades, the Muslim tradition, the Moors, even those ideologies that deify a man as in the Japanese tradition of Emperor worship, all such ideologies inevitably lead to control. Communism was the deification of the State. Built into everyone of these ideologies is the allurement of “letting go” of control of your own life but someone is always waiting in the wings to take up the reins.

mike: This statement is pure assumption. I believe the opposite. The state of pure dependence on a "higher power" (parent) in which we find ourselves as infants is directly analogous to theology's doctrine of dependence on God.

rw: Oh, to be sure, theism’s ideologies use common associations to develop their control. But where is this parent God when his children are dying on battlefields over his doctrines? Is this what “pure dependence” gains us? Our parents are careful not to violate our dependence on them. But alas, many of our parents are as much under the spell of these ideologies and pass them off on us, so we rush off to war and make them proud…until they get the news of our death on the battlefield. Then they cry out in their sorrow, “Oh God, why?” Eventually some suave minister will come along and answer for God and they’ll accept the explanation and go on with their empty lives.

mike: Not so. We are born completely unable to compete, and only able to trust our mothers and cooperate with those responsible for our care.

rw: Then my children must have been the exception. As infants they competed frequently and incessantly for my attention. Every cry was answered with a quest to discover the reason for their unhappiness. My wife and I spent many sleepless nights losing out to that competitive wailing.

mike: Competition must be taught, not cooperation. As infants we must cooperate to survive, and our survival is almost entirely out of our hands.

rw: I think you are equivocating cooperation with contentment. When an infant is not content he will let you know in a very competitive voice.

mike: That we must open our mouths to receive our sustenance is true--this is where free will comes in.

rw: Uh huh…I see…so the infant is reasoning in his mind, “Now let’s see, do I want sweet milk or artificial flavoring today?”

mike: But we are dependent on the sustenance being offered to us by another. Thus Jesus admonished his followers to become as a little child, and asserted that "of such is the kingdom of heaven." Once again, a failure to follow this truth (our true natures) is a cause of conflict. Successfully following this theistic truth is antithetical to war.

rw: And it is therefore your contention that infants dependency equates to theism? Or is it a case that Jesus used their innocence to equate to man’s natural hesitation to trust the control of his life to another? Perhaps it would be a good thing if we began to consider these natural hesitations a little more closely.

mike: True enough as we are taught the false doctrine of competition, but "in the beginning" there was only the child and the parent. The one entirely dependent on the other. The other employing its very existence so the one can live.

rw: And the parent shares no dependency on the child? How then do we grow and mature? Are we not dependent on our children as much as they on us? It would make me sad if you responded in the negative. Competition is not a doctrine Mike so it cannot be false. It is a fact of reality, an inescapable reality that we have no choice but to comply with unless we decide to commit suicide.

mike: Again, this is assumption. All that we know for sure is that the child is dependent on the parent. And if the child lives, it is because in some measure the parent has given of themself to the child, and the child has accepted. All we have evidence for from the womb is that for two to survive there must be cooperation. Of course for only one to survive, cooperation is unnecessary.

rw: Then you are refusing to see an entire other half of the coin of cooperation. You are still adamant that competition is the source of man’s ills. You imagine the child is not competing with the parent for the parents time, energy and resources. You imagine the parent is a perfect parent who’s resources fall out of heaven at a whim. A lot of people don’t have such parents Mike. My mother grew very ill when I was young and my father wasn’t strong enough to hold our family together, so it became dysfunctional to the extreme right before my eyes Mike. Your ideologies always seem to flow around the ideal and skirt the realities…don’t they.

mike: Again, when a child is conceived and born there is only one ideology. That of cooperation. An ideology that exists primarily, and independent, and fundamental is not truly in competition with ideologies that are developed subsequently. The second may be in competition with the first, but the first by continuing to exist is not unavoidably in competition with the second.

rw: An infant has no conception of ideology. It competes for attention with its cry and later, when it discerns the blur of motion is its mother, the one who addresses its needs, it learns to respond according to her expectations. You are superimposing an entire sentient knowledge base on an infant who is as selfish as selfish can be. It’s existence revolves around one axiom: the axiom of pain and comfort. When it’s hungry it cries, when it’s wet and uncomfortable, it cries. When it’s frightened by a loud noise or disturbed in its sleep, it cries. When a parent responds and addresses the source of pain and discomfort, it stops crying. Through-out this process the infant is competing with the only natural endowment he has available at that point…his voice.

mike: Whether or not there is an after or before life, the fundamental question of survival is whether there is enough to go around. And whether we must fight for limited resources, or work together to access greater and ulitimately unlimited resources.

rw: There are enough resources on this planet now to ensure no person starve…the only thing standing between those resources and the starving is man’s ideologies.

mike: This is nothing more or less than the state we find ourselves in as an infant. There is an ideal being or beings present the moment we exit the womb. The parent or parents. We find ourselves dependent on these more powerful beings, we see that we are less capable, that we have fewer choices, and thus we try to emulate them. Theology is nothing more or less than the natural state of mankind at birth.

rw: I would that that were true. Unfortunately, many children have no such luxury. But, that aside, you are still attributing much more to the behavior of a child than warranted. I imagine you find this necessary to support the connection to your faith and particular expression of it. There is no natural state of theology or theism. It is another ideology in a world of such ideologies. No infant is born into a natural state of theology and many infants are not even born into a natural state. Some are born crack addicts, others as orphans and many, many into a world where starvation looms daily on the horizon. Surely a heavenly father can do better than this?

mike: And the child thinks: They can walk, I cannot. They can drive, I cannot. They can feed themselves, I cannot.

rw: A child who cannot feed himself is capable of such thoughts? In many cases an older child may be thinking, “they can eat…I cannot”. Do you think he will consider this an ideal?

mike: This is an illogical leap. Some religionists erroneously take this belief. But children do not give themselves up as worthless unless they are explicitly taught to do so. Their natural inclination is to try to be like their parent. To become "heirs of God and Joint-heirs with Christ."

rw: Talking about illogical leaps. What does your persuasion of theism teach you about sin? Where did it come from? How does all man acquire the stain?

mike: A child sees that they are like their parents in many ways. And they see that they are becoming more so as time passes. From the womb a child's capabilities progress at an astounding rate. And observation of a child reveals that the child seems to derive enormous pleasure from these successes that bring them ever closer to the ideal.

rw: Providing, of course, they have ideal parents. And what does a child learn when he sees the ideal flounder, make a mistake? What happens when you encourage a child to consider things in this light and those ideals fail to live up to the expectations of the child? What does your ideology then offer as a consolation?

mike: In addition, the child immediately sees that the parent responds to their call. They make a petition (sometimes very loudly), and the parent responds with food and comfort, care and protection. Having such a powerful being respond to your request instills an intrinsic sense of worth. If THEY think I am worth it then I must be worth it. Intrinsic worth as a religious value stems from a natural parent-child relationship. Worthlessness is a component of false religion--as it is antithetical to the parental care necessary for survival of the child.

rw: It is true that a child derives his first sense of worth from his parents…provided he has any. It is not the case that he equates this with a god/father figurehead. This must be taught. So the child has a conflicting view if he has cognition of his worth, his parent’s worth and then further told about an ideal being who is of the greatest worth. An invisible ideal being whose worth trumps his and his parent’s worth. The devaluation to him and his view of his parents cannot be avoided. There is something out there, beyond me and my home, whose value I can never encompass…and he’s watching over me. The small child accepts whatever its parents say as the gospel…except those prohibitions against things the child wants or wants to do. Children are always testing the limits. But children love make believe. Only they do ask questions. Then, overnight it seems, they grow up, and start testing and asking more in depth questions. They run into tragedies and pitfalls and struggle with all such things we all struggle with…and some of them wonder where this ideal Father is…but not to worry…the ideology has many built in answers my child.

mike: Again, you are describing a false theology. The child sees that at first they cannot feed themselves. They are dependent on the parent for food, but not worthless. First the parent's attention testifies of their worth, and secondly they realize that though the food is given, they must open their mouths and suck! We are not at a loss to effect our salvation. And a sense of self-efficacy begins with the first mouthful of milk that responds to our suck. Without the parent, our survival is impossible. Thus, salvation is by grace. But unless we receive the proffered gift, we will starve in spite of grace. Thus James says "faith without works is dead," and show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. Without the parent, the infant dies, but without opening the mouth to suck the infant dies just as surely.

rw: And you continue to equivocate man with an infant. I am speaking of man who makes the choice himself to comply with a theistic ideology. Children, especially infants, have no capacity to comprehend anything on the level you and I are discussing.

mike: This is an overgeneralization as I have shown.

rw: You have shown no over-generalization by referring to infants. Bring this to the level of grown men and show it.

mike: Scriptural works from Hindu, Judeo-Christian, and Islamic traditions all point to the parent metaphor of God. All give examples of God's worth-affirming condescension to man.

rw: In other words, without God, man is worthless.

mike: As a parent stoops to meet the gaze of the infant, so Christ figures in theology stoop to meet the gaze of their spiritual children.

rw: Where, when, how? I have never stared a Christ figure in the eyes. And neither have you.

mike: This affirms our value.

rw: Need I say more? Why does our value need affirming by such means, unless it’s already been devalued by similar means.

mike: As a parent holds out their hand, but expects the child to take a step toward them; God offers to lift us, but requires us to step toward him. To grow we must both emulate the parent, and accept the gifts that are given in spite of our weakness. We both acknowledge our dependence, and our responsibility to grow by making efforts to meet the outstretched hands of our parents.

mike: All very nice and relevant to humans with parents whose hands they can touch. Equivocating that with a god is to anthropomorphosize the ideal.

mike: This is one story, but it is just a story. I see competition with man, self, or the earth as illusory. When I dig a hole, the earth in the hole yeilds to my shovel and I pile it high and make a mountain and valley where once it was plain. I compete only within my own false notions. Truth cannot compete with truth, and Truth as fundamental, first, and everlasting need not compete with the illusions that come and go with time.

rw: Then the earth and shovel are illusions? Is that a doctrine conducive to a man in the real world?


mike: Excommunication is not coersion. It is simple disassociation. As long as a person is free to engage on the terms set by a group, or disengage at will--if they find the terms are unacceptable--then freedom is preserved. Knowing the rules of a group, we excommunicate ourselves if we chose not to abide by them.

rw: Right…and send ourselves to hell in the process.

mike: Resisting excommunication is no more a sign of wrongness than is insisting on playing soccer on a baseball diamond when the referee has asked you to play elsewhere.

rw: Who said anything about resisting it? I’m only demonstrating that theism as an ideology has its own controls and defense mechanism. That it isn’t all about letting go. If it were, why don’t the resident rulers let go instead of resorting to such tactics?

mike: There is room, and to spare, but the diamond has a purpose of its own. Soccer players are not intrinsically wrong, but for one to play soccer while their teammates play baseball would be quite a trick.

rw: This has nothing to do with intrinsic wrongness. We’ve moved on to controlling the rank and file here.

mike: I still disagree. Weapons of war can be formed by a single warrior, and peace can be attained by simply being.

rw: Is it your contention then that the crusaders were equipped with their weapons by a single smithie? That peace was acquired by a single man? It took both sides to make a war. Both are cooperating with the tenets of war, with their respective military units and commanders and with their respective political environment that led to war. There’s a great deal of cooperation going on in these conflicts. If not, they’d end much sooner. Anyone can wage war…but no single man can wage a successful campaign. We are currently waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq and losing men everyday. Our government is waging a second level war against a fourth level opponent and will never win under such conditions. We’re fighting an opponent who is disconnected from a State. But our military was built up to wage war on a State level. Our special forces, using simple means are more successful than all the advance technology in our arsenal…because they are fighting this enemy on his level. When we move in with the big weapons the enemy just goes home, hides his weapons and waits until we finish bombing all the wedding receptions and Canadians…then returns a few months later and continues the campaign.

mike: What you call imperfection is what I call developmental incompleteness. A child may be perfect in form, substance, and perhaps in intention, but its development is incomplete.

rw: Indeed. Until we move this discussion beyond infancy we’re never going to get to the mature subjects. And I understand perfectly why you must introduce development. How else to get us onto the “Path” or “Way” where minds are shaped and molded, weapons formed and plans fabricated to turn private interpretations into public debate and then into law. But you didn’t answer my question.

Mike

rw: It is an inescapable axiom of existence. If you don’t compete, someone has to compete for you, if you continue to survive. Even Paul had to issue the edict that a man who doesn’t work, doesn’t eat. What do you think work is but a form of competition.

mike: We are apparently defining competition differently. How do you equate work with competition? I'm simply talking about competition as the idea that your life or freedom is a threat to mine, and we must compete for limited resources to live and be free.

rw: Nature has determined that man must be free enough to make choices about his own personal existence. Any ideology that infringes on this edict will fail for man.

mike: But that is the very ideology that I have been proposing. Perhaps nature "determines" it, but if you believe that freedom can be taken then freedom can be considered an ideal and not simply a given.

rw: Nature has determined that man’s existence is a value worthy of sustaining.

mike: Now you are anthropomorphizing "nature," and what is anthropomorphized nature, but God?

rw: Any ideology that violates this edict conflicts with man’s nature.

mike: I agree.

rw: Man’s best course today is to reject all such ideologies and make his own way. There is no ideal that fits the individual value of all men…how could there be? To accept such a claim is to reject one’s individuality.

mike: Here again, I think we are defining ideology differently. You and I seem to agree that it would be ideal if all men were free. Freedom does not reject individuality, but allows for it. Freedom then is an acceptable ideal--an absolute morality.

rw: “Go ye into the highways and byways and compelthem…” Any persuasive argument has the power to compel.

mike: And apparently we are defining compulsion differently as well. I've listened to endless persuasive arguments from theism and atheism, and yet somehow maintained my own views. How is this possible if persuasive argument inevitably compels me? Persuasive argument is simply argument that merits consideration. Compulsion is force. No one can be forced to believe. They may be forced to concede verbally, at least temporarily, but not to believe.


rw: Control is the inevitable end of all ideologies that begin with an ideal Mike.

mike: Aside from the probability that we are also defining control differently, the ideology of freedom could not possibly end in control--unless it is twisted to no longer truly be an ideal of freedom.

rw: To say otherwise is to deny history, Constantine, Roman Catholicism, the Crusades, the Muslim tradition, the Moors, even those ideologies that deify a man as in the Japanese tradition of Emperor worship, all such ideologies inevitably lead to control.

mike: But these are not ideologies of freedom, the one I have espoused. An ideology of freedom is not incompatable with the belief in God. Indeed, free will is must for all non-Calvinist Christians. In addition, I question the idea that the conquests you mentioned were really about God. Christ said that those opposed his followers would use his name to persecute them. The history you have cited is but an affirmation of Christ's prophetic knowledge. Using the name of God is different than following the ideology of God.

rw: Built into everyone of these ideologies is the allurement of “letting go” of control of your own life but someone is always waiting in the wings to take up the reins.

mike: Again you are talking about false theology. The Bible, the Quran, and the Baghavad Gita all draw a line between trusting in the "flesh" or in mankind and trusting in God. "Letting go" in the true sense is to let go of the need to control others as well as of self. We don't place ourselves in the hands of any mortal, but in the hands of God. It's a mental "letting go" and a mental process. It doesn't mean that we don't work, it means that we don't worry. We hold on to the process of our work, and let go of worrying about the product. It's a great stress reducer. You should try it sometime

rw: Oh, to be sure, theism’s ideologies use common associations to develop their control. But where is this parent God when his children are dying on battlefields over his doctrines?

mike: Receiving them back at home, of course perhaps a bit sad that we didn't trust him enough to wait until we were called.

rw: Then my children must have been the exception. As infants they competed frequently and incessantly for my attention.

mike: Children don't have to compete unless we make them. When a child cries a parent is only in competition with themself if they have other priorities that take precedence over the child. There is time and to spare to make a living, have some fun, and feed and comfort children--if you do it in the right order. I know. I have five of them myself. They don't have to compete for my attention as long as I make it clear that there is enough to go around. If however, I believe that my attentional resources are limited, then I will convey that idea to my children, and they will feel the need to compete for my limited resources. The task of a parent is to learn and convey that where love, attention, and care are concerned, there is always more where that came from.

rw: Every cry was answered with a quest to discover the reason for their unhappiness. My wife and I spent many sleepless nights losing out to that competitive wailing.

mike: However loud they wail there is no real competition. What is in the child's best interest is also in my own--and the child is not wailing to compete, nor is my responsiveness a "losing" of a battle--but rather a source of nourishment for both me and my child.

rw: I think you are equivocating cooperation with contentment. When an infant is not content he will let you know in a very competitive voice.

mike: I think you are equivocating competition with discontent. Having finished one thing I may grow discontent until I move on to the next, but I am not therefore in competition with another human being for life and freedom.

rw: Uh huh…I see…so the infant is reasoning in his mind, “Now let’s see, do I want sweet milk or artificial flavoring today?”

mike: No but perhaps "am I hungry or not?" By the way researchers have done studies in which they placed a pad soaked in milk on either side of an infants head. One soaked in the mother's milk and the other in another woman's milk. The infant turns to its mother's milk. That appears to be a choice, and implies some sophisticated perceptive ability.

rw: And it is therefore your contention that infants dependency equates to theism? Or is it a case that Jesus used their innocence to equate to man’s natural hesitation to trust the control of his life to another? Perhaps it would be a good thing if we began to consider these natural hesitations a little more closely.

mike: Oh yes. We should hesitate to trust anyone but our own parent. By the way, my references to infants and parents are simply to demonstrate that tendancies to believe in a higher power can be explained naturalistically. There is no need to posit some twisted, distorted ideology to explain the desire to believe in God. It is quite natural. Your examples of poor parenting do not negate the possibility that a belief in God is natural--they simply indicate that it may not be universal--and it apparently is not universal. Bad parenting may be a good explanation for atheism, but it does not negate a natural tendancy toward theism. And if the child survives at all, some parenting has been done--whether by a surrogate parent (Christ figure--there are several scriptural references to adoption by Christ) or by a natural parent (Father figure). It's quite relevant because if theism is natural then the argument that theism goes against man's nature is untenable

rw: ...the parent shares no dependency on the child? How then do we grow and mature? Are we not dependent on our children as much as they on us? It would make me sad if you responded in the negative.

mike: Of course. This is cooperation. For us to be parents we must have children. Godliness is parenthood. Parents who do what is in the best interest of the child are acting in godlike ways. Parents who do not do what is in the best interest of their children don't cooperate with them.

rw: Competition is not a doctrine Mike so it cannot be false. It is a fact of reality, an inescapable reality that we have no choice but to comply with unless we decide to commit suicide.

mike: Suicide is one manifestation of competition. I had a troubled teen once ask me "why won't God let me die?" He claimed to have tried to kill himself five times and failed. He said he had prayed to die. I asked him why he wanted to die. Was it to cease to exist, or was it to get out of a miserable situation? He said he wanted to get out a miserable situation. I replied that perhaps the message was that continuing to live was the only way to get out of his situation. Perhaps God knew what he was really asking and answered his underlying prayer by preserving his life. This kid was in an unecessary competition with his guardians for freedom, but ultimately not with his God.

rw: Then you are refusing to see an entire other half of the coin of cooperation.

mike: But you can't be on both sides of a coin at the same time. You either see heads or tails, but never both simultaneously. So although both belong to humanity, the two are mutually exclusive on a personal level in any given moment. On the battlefield a soldier may alternate back and forth between the two mental states, cooperation with his buddies and competition with his foes, but he can only think of one thing at a time--one thought if pursued inevitably tends toward death, the other inevitably toward life.

rw: You are still adamant that competition is the source of man’s ills. You imagine the child is not competing with the parent for the parents time, energy and resources.

mike: Yes I imagine that competition is not inevitable. How can my children compete for my resources when I have already given all of them freely to them? At work, I work for my children. At home, I am with and for my children. Even the thoughts that form while typing with you will ultimately be for my children.

rw: You imagine the parent is a perfect parent who’s resources fall out of heaven at a whim.

mike: A parent who seeks for cooperation with his child may not be perfect, but is approaching it. But regardless of whether a parent is perfect a child learns that there is a higher power on which it is dependent for life. Some see God as angry and threatening, others see him as kind and benevolent. Did you ever wonder why? You seem to imagine that all gods are invented for the purpose of controlling other people's minds. But it is the people that think of God, and strangely enough they usually imagine him to be much like their own fathers. Theism is a natural phenomenon. That natural theism has been exploited is irrelevant to the reasons why it exists. Theism came first, exploitation later.

rw: A lot of people don’t have such parents Mike. My mother grew very ill when I was young and my father wasn’t strong enough to hold our family together, so it became dysfunctional to the extreme right before my eyes Mike. Your ideologies always seem to flow around the ideal and skirt the realities…don’t they.

mike: Perhaps this is why you are an atheist. I'm sorry that you had such a painful experience. But a responsive parent can be just as real as a non-responsive parent. Theism may be a natural a result of active parenting, and atheism may be a natural result of having an absentee parent. Not inevitable results mind you. You are right that we must examine the adult child as well. There are many factors that can influence a person to abandon their natural tendancy to believe. A positive adoption experience is reminiscent of the Christ figure. A loss of a parent or loss of trust in the parent may result in an abandoning of belief. Other things may intervene as well, such as interpreting difficulties in life as stemming from a competition for life and freedom with our fellow man.

rw: There are enough resources on this planet now to ensure no person starve…the only thing standing between those resources and the starving is man’s ideologies.

mike: I agree. And primarily the ideology that there is not enough stands in the way of man's discovering that there is enough. A competition for obvious resources prevents a putting together of heads in order to better discover the less obvious resources--one of which is the resource of human kindness and generosity.


rw: Some are born crack addicts, others as orphans and many, many into a world where starvation looms daily on the horizon. Surely a heavenly father can do better than this?

mike: That is the hope. And I have seen this hope in very young children--who seem to have no reason for it. In abusive homes, very often children defy the tenets of behaviorism by coming back and back to an abusive parent. They reach out for love and support as though such reaching is innate and continue to reach for some time after they are slapped back down. They often forgive, they hope, they love, they even defend the very parent who attacks them. Eventually they may abandon this hope. But I have even seen adults who claim to have abandoned the hope of ever having a loving parent drawn to the slightest hint of an opportunity to try again. One mother lamented to me that the law prevented her from disciplining her child the way her father disciplined her. She would never get out of line the way her child did. I asked her how her relationship with her father was now, and she responded with a look of profound sadness. She replied that she never saw him anymore. I asked if that was the kind of relationship she wanted with her son. I knew before she answered that the answer was no. She still longed for her father's love and kindness. She had defended his way of parenting even while hating it. Hoping that his discipline was an indication of care. She must have been in her mid thirties--and hadn't seen her father for years. I am not naive about "reality" I have spent more than seven years working with "dysfunctional"
youth and families in various settings. It is in part this experience that makes me believe that theism is natural and persistent even in the face of terrible experiences with a parent.

rw: A child who cannot feed himself is capable of such thoughts? In many cases an older child may be thinking, “they can eat…I cannot”. Do you think he will consider this an ideal?

mike: Such capability gradually unfolds.

rw: And you continue to equivocate man with an infant. I am speaking of man who makes the choice himself to comply with a theistic ideology. Children, especially infants, have no capacity to comprehend anything on the level you and I are discussing.

mike: Perhaps not, but that mother of whom I wrote seemed very much like an infant as she contemplated her longing for her father.

rw: In other words, without God, man is worthless.

mike: Without a parent, at least at the biological level, man is not.

rw: Where, when, how? I have never stared a Christ figure in the eyes. And neither have you.

mike: Don't be too sure. Anyone who intervenes on the behalf of another--at their own expense--is a christ figure. And why do they do it? It is a natural response to the observation of suffering in others. Such an empathy response can be stifled, but unhindered it develops naturally.

rw: All very nice and relevant to humans with parents whose hands they can touch. Equivocating that with a god is to anthropomorphosize the ideal.

mike: Not equivocating necessarily, but suggesting that such a relationship is an impetus for a belief in God--or at least a hope of God.

rw: Then the earth and shovel are illusions? Is that a doctrine conducive to a man in the real world?

mike: The notion that they are in competition is an illusion.

rw: Who said anything about resisting it? I’m only demonstrating that theism as an ideology has its own controls and defense mechanism. That it isn’t all about letting go. If it were, why don’t the resident rulers let go instead of resorting to such tactics?

mike: What is excommunication if not a "letting go" of a particular member?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rw: The question I bring to the table is: Are the imperfections evidence of an intrinsic wrongness in man? Be careful how you answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mike: What you call imperfection is what I call developmental incompleteness. A child may be perfect in form, substance, and perhaps in intention, but its development is incomplete.

rw: Indeed. Until we move this discussion beyond infancy we’re never going to get to the mature subjects... But you didn’t answer my question.

mike: I don't believe we are mature yet, for one thing. But if I didn't answer your question it was because it was worded in such a way that was meaningless to me. Three words must first be defined: "imperfections," "intrinsic," and "wrongness." Not having yet reached our potential is certainly not a sign of "intrinsic wrongness" in my view. But what are you really asking?