rainbow walking

In this project I intend to demonstrate the intrinsic ‘wrongness’ of religion as a methodology for the salvage of man. I further intend to demonstrate the inherent “nihilism” in religion as a result of this intrinsic “wrongness’. From this I will conclude that if a god existed he would not have been omni-benevolent to use religion as a means of salvaging man.

Religion begins with the assumption of a god’s literal existence. Such a being is asserted to be equipped with attributes that man is not so endowed with, specifically the attribute of eternality…thus a god is not mortal and subject to the conditions of mortality.

Religion further postulates the existence of such a being as an example of “rightness” thus, by comparison, concludes man exists in a state of intrinsic “wrongness” relative to himself as man, because he is not equivalent to a god.

All religions are centered on the intrinsic “wrongness” of man and are formed and propagated on the basis of an implied crisis in man. This crisis, they maintain, is intrinsic to man. It is through this artificial crisis that men are led to accept the basic tenets of religion.

All such religions further proceed on the presupposition that the intrinsic “wrongness” of man is incurable by man, but salvageable by their respective processes which are suppose to redefine man in the image of their god.

So let’s begin by examining the presupposition of man’s intrinsic “wrongness”. Christianity, for example and the gospel narratives in particular, are built upon this intrinsic “wrongness” of man by examples of men and women who are inferred to be “wrong” in their existence on the basis of these examples. The vast majority of these examples introduce men and women with physical, personality or political defects, pursuing Jesus Christ for their salvation from their implied intrinsic “wrongness”. Most are portrayed with physical handicaps like blindness, deafness, leprosy, or some other crippling birth defect. Others are portrayed as prostitutes, thieves, drunkards, and adulteresses. Still others are portrayed as tax collectors, money changers and religious zealots. All of these examples portray these people as flocking to Jesus Christ as the example of a perfect man in whose perfection is exposed their assumed intrinsic imperfections and “wrongness”.

Most other religions follow the same crisis theme in different ways, but all imply or specify man’s intrinsic “wrongness” at the outset.

Thus religion creates, by reference to birth defects, character flaws and implied wrong political associations, the illusion of an intrinsic “wrongness” of man. From this artificial creation man is cast in the shadow of a crisis awaiting resolution.

Yet this begs the question of why birth defects, character flaws or political associations are evidence of an intrinsic “wrongness” in man, rather than evidence of an inherent “wrongness” in man’s state of existence?

Are people with birth defects, character flaws or implied wrong political associations intrinsically “wrong” or is this “wrongness” inherent in their state of existence at the time of birth and represents their reaction to conditions and circumstances beyond their control? Does religion expose an intrinsic “wrongness” in man or create a dichotomy between man’s mannishness and the “wrongness” inherent in his state of existence? I propose the latter.

Now let’s consider the salvagability of man according to religion. All the cures proffered by religion are presented as miraculous extraneous resolutions outside of man and again, by inference, the intrinsic “wrongness” of man is defined by the inherent “wrongness” of his existence. Further, due to man’s alleged intrinsic “wrongness” he is therefore incapable of resolving the inherent “wrongness” of his state of existence.

Thus man is intrinsically “wrong” and further incapable of “righting” himself.

From this can be seen that religion, rather than offering man any hope of salvagability, further exacerbates the inherent “wrongness” of man’s state of existence by rendering it incurable by man and then offers this fictitious, artificially created crisis as further evidence of man’s intrinsic “wrongness”.

In this way religion creates an artificial crisis that is un-resolvable by man and then offers a process of indoctrination into religious dogma as the only resolution requiring lifelong participation in the hope of a resolution in the afterlife or re-incarnation.

Thus religion, via the mechanism of artificial intrinsic “wrongness”, does not resolve the crisis, (indeed it whole heartedly depends upon it as its life blood), but actually exacerbates the “wrongness” inherent in man’s state of existence by proffering an utterly un-attainable “rightness” via extraneous examples of gods created in the image of religious ideals of perfection.

But the “wrongness” inherent in man’s state of existence is not due to any intrinsic “wrongness” in man himself, indeed, the “wrongness” inherent in man’s state of existence, inherited by birth, lies within man’s state of existence and not within man himself.


Let’s consider the primary “wrongness” inherent in man’s state of existence: man’s mortality. Consider that man is born with an instinct for existence. The moment he leaves the womb and enters existence as a participant he cries out for continued existence and thereby fills his lungs with the first necessary gulps of oxygen needed to continue his existence. His own anatomy functions as a life support system to enable his participation in his own continued existence. His own anatomy, his life support system, endows him with the tools he needs for the continuation of his existence. He has built in warning systems that allow him to protect his valued existence from dangers inherent in his state of existence; pain sensors that alert him to conditions adverse to his continued existence.

Also implied in the normal functions of his body is the built in knowledge that he exists in a state of mortality and thus his continued existence is not assured but exists always under the threat of extinction; that conditions of “wrongness” await him in the state of existence into which he is born. Thus he inherits, at birth, a state of existence that includes a factor of “wrongness” that his life support systems have already anticipated and prepared him to resist. Thus man is endowed by the “wrongness” inherent in his state of existence with an instinct to resist this inherent “wrongness” of his state of existence.

Religion inverts the inherent “wrongness” in man’s state of existence, that nature has endowed man to resist, and equates it to an intrinsic “wrongness” in man. Religion compels man not to resist, but to accept the inherent “wrongness” of his existence, the “wrongness” contained in the condition of his mortality; that resistance is a sign of his intrinsic “wrongness as man.

Death, the religious contend, is a condition of life and must be accepted as such, and not to be resisted. But man’s very nature demands resistance. Thus religion points to man’s nature to resist and declares an intrinsic “wrongness” to man.

Is it not entirely plausible that there is an intrinsic “wrongness” to religion; that man is “right” to resist mortality; that his death represents an inherent “wrongness” of his state of existence, and any claim to accept it as inevitably so is actually the intrinsic “wrong” claim that violates man’s nature as man?

Consider that man has also been endowed by his nature with one primary tool or weapon that enables him to resist the “wrongness” inherent in his state of existence: his imagination. From man’s imagination has sprung his greatest act of resistance: his science.

Consider also that man has additionally been endowed by his nature with a will to continue his existence and resist the inherent “wrongness” condition of death. From man’s imagination comes his science and from his will comes his determination to resist, to salvage his right to exist from the inherent “wrongness” in his state of existence.

In conclusion I am always puzzled by the atheist who embraces death as an inevitability. He apparently does not realize the influence of thousands of years of theistic dogma that has gone into the creation of man’s submissiveness to the “wrongness” of his state of existence. When the theist claims I am an arbiter of nihilism because of my anti-theism, he fails to consider that I embrace the only true and consistent future of man struggling to “right” the inherent “wrongness” of his state of existence. That future holds forth the evidence of man’s science and will as proof against nihilism. That future is based on evidence found in nature of other living organisms that nature has stacked the genetic deck to allow lifespans to extend into the hundreds and thousands of years.

It is the theist who is forced to embrace nihilism and accept the inevitability of his death without a whimper, even to hasten it along in despicable acts of cowardice it calls martyrdom…which I just call plain old dumb. Religion uses the same imagination to create an imagined resolution that has no counter-part in reality at all. I embrace another, more utilitarian, application of the imagination to develop man’s science and further enhance man’s existence until he is able to make “right” the inherent “wrongness” in his state of existence. Mine is not the nihilistic embrace of intrinsic “wrongness” of man, but the realistic designation of the intrinsic “wrongness” of religion.

I implore my fellow atheists to divest their minds of the theistically implanted nihilistic ideals of death as an inevitability and allow yourselves to consider the possibilities of an indefinitely extended lifespan. Until man turns to face this inherent “wrongness” in his state of existence, he will always be susceptible to these theistic imaginary resolutions that salvage nothing and take man over the tired roads of a bloody history created in the wake of hateful doctrines that portray man as being intrinsically “wrong”. When you teach such tripe over decades and decades, how can you expect man to rise above such error long enough to discover that he is not intrinsically evil or “wrong” , just trapped in a state of existence where it becomes his “right” to resist and make “right” that inherited “wrongness” using the tools nature has provided and that he has used thusfar to climb out of the caves into the 21st century.

Thus I conclude that if an omnimax god exists and created this state of man's existence, including the inherent "wrongness" of his mortality, such a being could not be omni-benevolent if he did not allow a way for man to rectify the "wrongness" inherent in his state of existence, by his own efforts. That man's imagination and subsequent science would have no role or reason to exist in a state of existence where man was not afforded the right and opportunity to salvage his own existence by his own best efforts.

Alix Nenuphar

rw:

You stated,
While I suspect a sub-text of 'salvation', I am curious about your definition of 'wrongness.' In addition, do you believe a priori that man requires salvaging?

Could you clarify how the nihilism of religion might be used to demonstrate that a 'god' would or would not have used religion?

Only a limited set of religions believed in the immortality (or trans-mortality) of god(s). Old Norse, many of the African religions, Hinduism, etc. all portray their deity figures as mortal and changing. I suspect that your characterization in this case stems almost entirely from the various flavours of Judeo-Christianity. If you wish to couch your discussion within that cultural and theological context, that is perfectly acceptable, but I do not believe that your universals about god hold.

Again, I believe this represents an assertion based on the tents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Other religions do not make this assumption.

Incorrect. See above.

Incorrect. See above.

I suspect that this definition of 'wrongness' and the one you referred to above are inherently different, even in Christianity: Original Sin is one thing, physical, personal or political defects are another.

Actually, most of these examples show people flocking to Christ to be cured of their afflictions. 'Wrongness', except in the concept of personal suffering, doesn't appear to enter into it. The depictions of the various 'healings' by Christ and the reactions of those involved rarely seem more glamorous than the emotional responses of people attending an excellent clinic.

Universal statements like this are all the better for some supporting evidence. I know a fair amount about other religions, and this statement is simply incorrect.

I am unaware of Christianity (to use your example) discussing wrong political associations as a basis for Original Sin.

You seem to be returning to the concept of Original Sin, here.

So rather than people being born inherently sinful, they are born into a sinful world and thus acquire sin?

Do you have any experience with Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Jainism, etc.?

I will agree that both Christianity and Judaism appear to offer the singularly depressing concept that man is born doomed, and this doom is irresolvable without divine intervention. The case of Islam is somewhat more complex.

OK.

Such an assertion is all the better for proof, or at least a demonstration. After all, how do you know that Christianity (for example) isn't right? In which case, not only are you doomed, you are damned for eternity.


Until you define 'wongness'', this entire section appears without foundation. Why is mortality 'wrong'? And certainly, granting evolution, any organism that failed to exert itself towards 'staying alive' would rapidly remove its genes from future generations.

Your distinction between wrongness in man's state of existence and wrongness in man - particularly with regards to mortality - is very far from clear.

Since Christianity postulates immortality of the soul, I fail to see how your statement applies to that particular faith. In addition, suicide is considered a mortal sin - something to be 'resisted'.

There may be such a 'wrongness' (however you manage to define it), but this paragraph is a suggestion, not a demonstration of that concept.

Ummmm. I don't follow this at all.

Unless you are familiar with immortal people, I fail to see that this statement makes sense: people die. To deny the fact that one is going to die is essentially insane - a denial of reality. Theology has nothing to do with this. In addition, I there is nothing about atheism that makes the prospect of mortality any more palatable.

Science is not currently able to confer immortality. The fact that it might at some point in the future is unlikely to prevent your death or mine. And in fact, you have yet to actually demonstrate that atheists hold such a position based on their exposure to 'theistic' teachings.

And in fact, many (probably the majority) of people in the world don't feel this way. Why proclaim a crusade?

I see you have returned to your assertions from the PoE thread that omnimax demonstrates its benevolence by letting man suffer along the road to some greatest good; a greatest good that omnimax could have created without the suffering inherent in a development process.

It does not make logical sense there, and it doesn't appear to be related to your inherently discussable idea that the Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) begin with a highly depressing and inherently constricting view of the inherent worth of man.

rainbow walking

rw: In this project I intend to demonstrate the intrinsic ‘wrongness’ of religion as a methodology for the salvage of man.



alix: While I suspect a sub-text of 'salvation', I am curious about your definition of 'wrongness.' In addition, do you believe a priori that man requires salvaging?

rw: The definition of “wrongness” is defined as this labor unfolds. I think my postulates involving man’s mortality and his struggle to “exist” are the basis of my use of “wrongness” from which “salvage” is derived. And yes, I believe a priori that man not only requires salvaging from his mortality but struggles against it daily.

rw: I further intend to demonstrate the inherent “nihilism” in religion as a result of this intrinsic “wrongness’. From this I will conclude that if a god existed he would not have been omni-benevolent to use religion as a means of salvaging man.



alix: Could you clarify how the nihilism of religion might be used to demonstrate that a 'god' would or would not have used religion?

rw: The argument is quite clear on this.

rw: Religion begins with the assumption of a god’s literal existence. Such a being is asserted to be equipped with attributes that man is not so endowed with, specifically the attribute of eternality…thus a god is not mortal and subject to the conditions of mortality.



alix: Only a limited set of religions believed in the immortality (or trans-mortality) of god(s). Old Norse, many of the African religions, Hinduism, etc. all portray their deity figures as mortal and changing.

rw: The Norse pantheon had Wotan, (or Odin), and I see no evidence of his mortality in their myths, Hindu’s have Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, again all considered as immortal and timeless…as for the Shamanistic religions I shall have to do a bit more research because there are so many variants…but this project covers enough of the major religions to be succinct in scope.

alix: I suspect that your characterization in this case stems almost entirely from the various flavours of Judeo-Christianity. If you wish to couch your discussion within that cultural and theological context, that is perfectly acceptable, but I do not believe that your universals about god hold.

rw: Shrug…they hold in a wide enough set of cases to serve the basic premises of this discussion.


rw: Religion further postulates the existence of such a being as an example of “rightness” thus, by comparison, concludes man exists in a state of intrinsic “wrongness” relative to himself as man, because he is not equivalent to a god.



alix: Again, I believe this represents an assertion based on the tents of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Other religions do not make this assumption.

rw: No…it holds true in the majority of religious tenets. All religions define their gods in such a way that enables them to stand out as “gods” else, what’s to worship?

rw: All religions are centered on the intrinsic “wrongness” of man and are formed and propagated on the basis of an implied crisis in man. This crisis, they maintain, is intrinsic to man. It is through this artificial crisis that men are led to accept the basic tenets of religion.



alix: Incorrect. See above.

rw: You have not established any “incorrectness” that I can see.

rw: All such religions further proceed on the presupposition that the intrinsic “wrongness” of man is incurable by man, but salvageable by their respective processes which are suppose to redefine man in the image of their god.



alix: Incorrect. See above.

rw: You have not established any “incorrectness” that I can see.

rw: So let’s begin by examining the presupposition of man’s intrinsic “wrongness”. Christianity, for example and the gospel narratives in particular, are built upon this intrinsic “wrongness” of man by examples of men and women who are inferred to be “wrong” in their existence on the basis of these examples. The vast majority of these examples introduce men and women with physical, personality or political defects, pursuing Jesus Christ for their salvation from their implied intrinsic “wrongness”. Most are portrayed with physical handicaps like blindness, deafness, leprosy, or some other crippling birth defect. Others are portrayed as prostitutes, thieves, drunkards, and adulteresses. Still others are portrayed as tax collectors, money changers and religious zealots.



alix: I suspect that this definition of 'wrongness' and the one you referred to above are inherently different, even in Christianity: Original Sin is one thing, physical, personal or political defects are another.

rw: The point is, sin and original sin, are religiously derived from these examples. In other religions the intrinsic “wrongness” may be implied in man’s lack of understanding, wisdom or some other lacking attribute that makes him different, and less than, the associated god; all going towards establishing either an implied or specified intrinsic “wrongness” in man.

rw: All of these examples portray these people as flocking to Jesus Christ as the example of a perfect man in whose perfection is exposed their assumed intrinsic imperfections and “wrongness”.

alix: Actually, most of these examples show people flocking to Christ to be cured of their afflictions. 'Wrongness', except in the concept of personal suffering, doesn't appear to enter into it. The depictions of the various 'healings' by Christ and the reactions of those involved rarely seem more glamorous than the emotional responses of people attending an excellent clinic.

rw: And why should these “afflicted” be held up as prime examples of humanity in a religious context? Your criticism here fails to scratch the surface of my premise. Their reactions to the alleged “cures” is irrelevant…their pursuit of a perceived “healer” isn’t. The implication is that all men are defective and should pursue an extraneous “cure” from a god.

rw: Most other religions follow the same crisis theme in different ways, but all imply or specify man’s intrinsic “wrongness” at the outset.



alix: Universal statements like this are all the better for some supporting evidence. I know a fair amount about other religions, and this statement is simply incorrect.

rw: Then prove it. Every religion, no matter how it’s portrayed, follows this basic script.

rw: Thus religion creates, by reference to birth defects, character flaws and implied wrong political associations, the illusion of an intrinsic “wrongness” of man. From this artificial creation man is cast in the shadow of a crisis awaiting resolution.



alix: I am unaware of Christianity (to use your example) discussing wrong political associations as a basis for Original Sin.

rw: Then you have missed the relevant significance of the many references in the gospel narratives to a “Kingdom of God” as opposed to the kingdoms of men.

rw: Yet this begs the question of why birth defects, character flaws or political associations are evidence of an intrinsic “wrongness” in man, rather than evidence of an inherent “wrongness” in man’s state of existence?



alix: You seem to be returning to the concept of Original Sin, here.

rw: That is one religious depiction…yes? All religions have some similar concept portraying man as inferior in some way.

rw: Are people with birth defects, character flaws or implied wrong political associations intrinsically “wrong” or is this “wrongness” inherent in their state of existence at the time of birth and represents their reaction to conditions and circumstances beyond their control? Does religion expose an intrinsic “wrongness” in man or create a dichotomy between man’s mannishness and the “wrongness” inherent in his state of existence? I propose the latter.



alix: So rather than people being born inherently sinful, they are born into a sinful world and thus acquire sin?

rw: Sin is depicted as a state of disobedience to God. My use of “wrongness” in the latter case has nothing to do with sin.

rw: Now let’s consider the salvagability of man according to religion. All the cures proffered by religion are presented as miraculous extraneous resolutions outside of man and again, by inference, the intrinsic “wrongness” of man is defined by the inherent “wrongness” of his existence. Further, due to man’s alleged intrinsic “wrongness” he is therefore incapable of resolving the inherent “wrongness” of his state of existence.



alix: Do you have any experience with Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Jainism, etc.?

rw: What do you mean by “experience”? These religions are often depicted as “ways of life” and not just “religions” but they still operate on the same frequency using different symbolic terms. They require lifelong commitments and make no promises of a resolution to the pseudo-crisis they create in man, in this life.

rw: Thus man is intrinsically “wrong” and further incapable of “righting” himself.

From this can be seen that religion, rather than offering man any hope of salvagability, further exacerbates the inherent “wrongness” of man’s state of existence by rendering it incurable by man and then offers this fictitious, artificially created crisis as further evidence of man’s intrinsic “wrongness”.

In this way religion creates an artificial crisis that is un-resolvable by man and then offers a process of indoctrination into religious dogma as the only resolution requiring lifelong participation in the hope of a resolution in the afterlife or re-incarnation.



alix: I will agree that both Christianity and Judaism appear to offer the singularly depressing concept that man is born doomed, and this doom is irresolvable without divine intervention. The case of Islam is somewhat more complex.

rw: In as much as many of Islam’s basic tenets have been merged with Hindu, Buddhist and other similar eastern religions I can see why you would say this. Let’s look at the basic Buddhist’s essential truth: To prevent suffering one has to conquer craving and desire and this conquest leads to the attainment of nirvana or complete enlightenment.

How does one conquer one’s desire to exist? What is the result?

rw: Thus religion, via the mechanism of artificial intrinsic “wrongness”, does not resolve the crisis, (indeed it whole heartedly depends upon it as its life blood), but actually exacerbates the “wrongness” inherent in man’s state of existence by proffering an utterly un-attainable “rightness” via extraneous examples of gods created in the image of religious ideals of perfection.



alix: OK.

rw: But the “wrongness” inherent in man’s state of existence is not due to any intrinsic “wrongness” in man himself, indeed, the “wrongness” inherent in man’s state of existence, inherited by birth, lies within man’s state of existence and not within man himself.



alix: Such an assertion is all the better for proof, or at least a demonstration. After all, how do you know that Christianity (for example) isn't right? In which case, not only are you doomed, you are damned for eternity.

rw: I provide ample demonstration during the course of this project. How do you know any example of religion is or isn’t right?


rw: Let’s consider the primary “wrongness” inherent in man’s state of existence: man’s mortality. Consider that man is born with an instinct for existence. The moment he leaves the womb and enters existence as a participant he cries out for continued existence and thereby fills his lungs with the first necessary gulps of oxygen needed to continue his existence. His own anatomy functions as a life support system to enable his participation in his own continued existence. His own anatomy, his life support system, endows him with the tools he needs for the continuation of his existence. He has built in warning systems that allow him to protect his valued existence from dangers inherent in his state of existence; pain sensors that alert him to conditions adverse to his continued existence.

Also implied in the normal functions of his body is the built in knowledge that he exists in a state of mortality and thus his continued existence is not assured but exists always under the threat of extinction; that conditions of “wrongness” await him in the state of existence into which he is born. Thus he inherits, at birth, a state of existence that includes a factor of “wrongness” that his life support systems have already anticipated and prepared him to resist. Thus man is endowed by the “wrongness” inherent in his state of existence with an instinct to resist this inherent “wrongness” of his state of existence.



alix: Until you define 'wongness'', this entire section appears without foundation.

rw: This section is a definition of the “wrongness” inherent in man’s existence.

alix: Why is mortality 'wrong'?

rw: Is death “right”? If so, why?

alix: And certainly, granting evolution, any organism that failed to exert itself towards 'staying alive' would rapidly remove its genes from future generations.

rw: Indeed, and the driving purpose behind replication is?

rw: Religion inverts the inherent “wrongness” in man’s state of existence, that nature has endowed man to resist, and equates it to an intrinsic “wrongness” in man. Religion compels man not to resist, but to accept the inherent “wrongness” of his existence, the “wrongness” contained in the condition of his mortality; that resistance is a sign of his intrinsic “wrongness as man.



alix: Your distinction between wrongness in man's state of existence and wrongness in man - particularly with regards to mortality - is very far from clear.

rw: My premise is based on all the factors inherent in man’s state of existence that contribute to his mortality. Take the biblical examples I listed earlier: each exposes, not an intrinsic “wrongness” in man, but an inherent “wrongness” in his state of existence. Why should man himself be held as intrinsically “wrong” due to the inherent “wrongness” in his state of existence? Is it man’s fault that he is born into a state of existence that threatens and finally destroys his existence? Does this fact expose an intrinsic “wrongness” to man or an inherent “wrongness” in the state of existence into which he is born?

rw: Death, the religious contend, is a condition of life and must be accepted as such, and not to be resisted. But man’s very nature demands resistance. Thus religion points to man’s nature to resist and declares an intrinsic “wrongness” to man.



alix: Since Christianity postulates immortality of the soul, I fail to see how your statement applies to that particular faith.

rw: And “soul” is another of those religious inventions that enable Christians to accept their fate without a whimper.

alix: In addition, suicide is considered a mortal sin - something to be 'resisted'.

rw: And where is this stated? Chapter and verse please?

rw: Is it not entirely plausible that there is an intrinsic “wrongness” to religion; that man is “right” to resist mortality; that his death represents an inherent “wrongness” of his state of existence, and any claim to accept it as inevitably so is actually the intrinsic “wrong” claim that violates man’s nature as man?



alix: There may be such a 'wrongness' (however you manage to define it), but this paragraph is a suggestion, not a demonstration of that concept.

rw: Okay, describe it anyway you please. If you have an alternative suggestion I shall hear it gladly.

rw: Consider that man has also been endowed by his nature with one primary tool or weapon that enables him to resist the “wrongness” inherent in his state of existence: his imagination. From man’s imagination has sprung his greatest act of resistance: his science.



alix: Ummmm. I don't follow this at all.

rw: Where do you imagine man puts together the connections of his observations? Where does “theory and hypothesis” originate?

rw: Consider also that man has additionally been endowed by his nature with a will to continue his existence and resist the inherent “wrongness” condition of death. From man’s imagination comes his science and from his will comes his determination to resist, to salvage his right to exist from the inherent “wrongness” in his state of existence.

In conclusion I am always puzzled by the atheist who embraces death as an inevitability.



alix: Unless you are familiar with immortal people, I fail to see that this statement makes sense: people die.

rw: Yes, they do…but why so soon? Sea turtles live hundreds of years and some trees have been dated to six thousand years. Why does man have to settle for less?

alix:To deny the fact that one is going to die is essentially insane - a denial of reality.

rw: No one is denying the reality that most men will die before they reach 75 or 80 years of age. But why accept this limitation as a reality? Such acceptance seems “insane” to me when we have evidence that some living things are still alive today that came into existence when men were just beginning the process of domestication. 6000 years is a long time to a man who only has 100 at best. But 6000 is a drop in the bucket to a universe that is billions of years old…yes?

alix: Theology has nothing to do with this.

rw: Oh, it has everything to do with this insane acquiescence to man’s limited mortality.

alix: In addition, I there is nothing about atheism that makes the prospect of mortality any more palatable.

rw: I would hope not. But an atheist, to be true to his convictions, should examine all the many subtle influences theism holds over his worldview, particularly in the question of his mortality. Mortality is not palatable and shouldn’t be.

rw: He apparently does not realize the influence of thousands of years of theistic dogma that has gone into the creation of man’s submissiveness to the “wrongness” of his state of existence. When the theist claims I am an arbiter of nihilism because of my anti-theism, he fails to consider that I embrace the only true and consistent future of man struggling to “right” the inherent “wrongness” of his state of existence. That future holds forth the evidence of man’s science and will as proof against nihilism. That future is based on evidence found in nature of other living organisms that nature has stacked the genetic deck to allow lifespans to extend into the hundreds and thousands of years.

It is the theist who is forced to embrace nihilism and accept the inevitability of his death without a whimper, even to hasten it along in despicable acts of cowardice it calls martyrdom…which I just call plain old dumb. Religion uses the same imagination to create an imagined resolution that has no counter-part in reality at all. I embrace another, more utilitarian, application of the imagination to develop man’s science and further enhance man’s existence until he is able to make “right” the inherent “wrongness” in his state of existence. Mine is not the nihilistic embrace of intrinsic “wrongness” of man, but the realistic designation of the intrinsic “wrongness” of religion.


I implore my fellow atheists to divest their minds of the theistically implanted nihilistic ideals of death as an inevitability and allow yourselves to consider the possibilities of an indefinitely extended lifespan.



alix: Science is not currently able to confer immortality.

rw: In the first place, I’m not reaching for immortality here, just indefinite lifespan. All of us are born with an indefinite lifespan now but with the additional probability that it won’t extend much beyond 75 or 80 years. Science is currently able to infer, from many observations and studies, that life can be extended.

alix: The fact that it might at some point in the future is unlikely to prevent your death or mine.

rw: Right, what’s in it for me? At this point only the satisfaction of ridding the world of a destructive religiously indoctrinated belief that death is an in-evitability and beyond man’s reach of redress. As long as man coasts along on this erroneous assumption, accentuated by religion, there will never be anything more than a profit motive attempt at a resolution. If, and when, man recognizes the fallacy of submitting to death without much of a struggle, then he can institutionalize his efforts at a resolution…the same way we institutionalized our efforts to put a man on the moon. How long did this take once man elevated the effort?

alix: And in fact, you have yet to actually demonstrate that atheists hold such a position based on their exposure to 'theistic' teachings.

rw: What other reason could they have for not allowing themselves to entertain the idea? Why has it remained such a low-key conceptualization to begin with? Especially in light of man’s medical progress?

rw: Until man turns to face this inherent “wrongness” in his state of existence, he will always be susceptible to these theistic imaginary resolutions that salvage nothing and take man over the tired roads of a bloody history created in the wake of hateful doctrines that portray man as being intrinsically “wrong”. When you teach such tripe over decades and decades, how can you expect man to rise above such error long enough to discover that he is not intrinsically evil or “wrong” , just trapped in a state of existence where it becomes his “right” to resist and make “right” that inherited “wrongness” using the tools nature has provided and that he has used thusfar to climb out of the caves into the 21st century.



alix: And in fact, many (probably the majority) of people in the world don't feel this way.

rw: Really?

alix: Why proclaim a crusade?

rw: What’s the alternative? Keep quiet and let things continue as they are?

rw: Thus I conclude that if an omnimax god exists and created this state of man's existence, including the inherent "wrongness" of his mortality, such a being could not be omni-benevolent if he did not allow a way for man to rectify the "wrongness" inherent in his state of existence, by his own efforts. That man's imagination and subsequent science would have no role or reason to exist in a state of existence where man was not afforded the right and opportunity to salvage his own existence by his own best efforts.



alix: I see you have returned to your assertions from the PoE thread that omnimax demonstrates its benevolence by letting man suffer along the road to some greatest good; a greatest good that omnimax could have created without the suffering inherent in a development process.

rw: Actually, it isn’t the god itself that I see as necessary to preserve, but the attributes, that man should not let fade away, but should appropriate as his own highest ideals of “greatest good”. But this is just an aside…

alix: It does not make logical sense there, and it doesn't appear to be related to your inherently discussable idea that the Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) begin with a highly depressing and inherently constricting view of the inherent worth of man.

rw: Aside from your other many erroneous claims you seem to have missed the import of this version of PoE.

theophilus

Just one question: so what?

Alix Nenuphar

Theophilus:

Now, now. rw is trying to say something. Mind you, I believe that most of his/her post represents an emotional attempt to deal his/her own mortality - since it appears both logically confused and lacking in information of other faiths than Christianity, but we needs must give him/her the benefit of the doubt.

At bottom, I think that he/she is attempting to say that religions encourage acceptance of death as the 'norm' - which prevents humanity from attempting to eliminate death; and ruins humanities faith in its ability to solve its own problems - by arrogating to itself (religion) all problem-solving ability.

My apologies: that was wordy. Allow me to try again.

I believe that rw is arguing three points:

1) religion teaches man that he cannot solve his own problems, and

2) religion teaches man that death is 'right' (by which I think he means 'acceptable'), and

3) since death is not 'right', man should ignore what religion teaches and solve the problem of death.



----------------------------------
By the way, is it considered 'sexist' in American message boards to use standard (i.e. old-fashioned) masculine pronouns when in doubt about another's gender?

Jobar

Alix:
By the way, is it considered 'sexist' in American message boards to use standard (i.e. old-fashioned) masculine pronouns when in doubt about another's gender?

Not really. Some use 's/he' or word their comments to avoid the need for personal pronouns, but as long as you aren't purposely using the wrong set of pronouns I think it's fine.

theophilus- 'so what' is NOT a substantive comment, and quoting the entirety of a long post is considered poor db etiquette- *particularly* for such a short reply. Use the first paragraph or sentence, and the last, with ... or [snipped] for the body. Same effect, less bandwidth wasted. Your snide and sneering sniping at the efforts of others here to explain their positions and philosophies is winning you no converts, and treading close to the line of disobeying rule 2- the 'don't be a jerk' part. If you want to answer someone to tell them you think they are wrong, fine- but you then have to explain your opinion. That's what this whole exercise is *for*, after all. Jobar, moderator.

theophilus

A little too subtle in my response, was I? I was asking what significance there was to the argument, from an atheistic position.
Aside from the fact that a materialist cannot meaningfully speak of "wrongness," I was asking what difference it makes in a materialist world.
My reply was in direct relationship to the rather lengthy nature of the post, hence the necessity of including the entire quote.
Your standard of response, i.e., rule 3, is clearly not uniformly applied to the atheists arguing here. I regularly receive insulting, vacuous, insubstantial comments and have never seen these posters warned. I guess the rule only applies to Christians, huh?

theophilus

This is really just a variant on the PoE argument and suffers from the same problems, i.e., there is no materialist/naturalist basis for speaking of moral qualities.
It is therefore, irrelevant.

Alix Nenuphar

What I find most interesting is the fact that rw keeps validating the PoE: in this case, that the existence of religion precludes the existence of an omnimax being. This is precisely the PoE - although I must concur with Theophilus that the initial post by rw was unecessary vague and wordy.

Theli

So why repeat what he had already writen? The text already existed. I mean quotes are used to point out parts of a text.
How did you reach the conclution that things and beings that can be described as matter cannot have morality?
Wich aspect of matter makes morality impossible?