"Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God while this same God drowned infants in their cribs. Because he refuses to cloak the reality of the world's suffering in a cloying fantasy of eternal life, the atheist feels in his bones just how precious life is--and, indeed, how unfortunate it is that millions of human beings suffer the most harrowing abridgements of their happiness for no good reason at all."
this is a really good read, for athiests and non-athiests alike.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
I respectfully disagree with this. Not only atheists think this way. Some believers, myself included, know that God is not the one who wipes out babies while saving others. That's nature's work. Life is precious and life is dangerous.
True believers and atheists are just people. Some are right, some are wrong, in all camps.
thanks for your thoughts on this article, goldennib. i'm looking forward to getting many points of view on this. my blog, more often than not, is not one that has a whole lot of controversial topics (for the exception of my blasphemous jesus images), but once in a while it's nice to delve into it.
i think what i really liked about this is that it does point out a double standard when it comes to athiests and non-athiests. if believers (not you specifically) choose to ask us "why not believe? why not? why not? you know you will eventually..." and so on and so forth, then i think non-believers have every right to questions believers.
i never wanted to believe in a god that wiped out babies while saving others. i think the point is that there are those who make it out of life and death situations and say "he saved me!"
i recall around the tsunami time that starr jones had finished her honeymoon there a month before the tsunami hit. she was actually quoted as saying god had blessed her. jon stewart was genius enough to mention that the tsunami missing her was not a blessing, but rather on oversight on god's part.
that's the kind of shit that really gets to me.
goldennib,
you can, of course, "disagree" all you want. But perhaps you might state at least one reason for your disagreement? Dispute at least one of the countless and (to me) incontrovertible arguments that Harris makes?
Otherwise, you've simply made Harris's point for him. (So, thanks. I guess.)
kari - Nothing I like more than a good argument.
ungeziefer – Here specifically is what I disagree with: “Only the atheist…” Each time this phrase is used, the author is wrong because atheists are not the only people who recognize the misguided beliefs mentioned in his paragraph. By using the phrase “Only the atheist…” the author is engaging in the same false certitudes he is accusing others of.
The last time I checked, atheists have not proven the non-existence of God any more than believers have proven God’s existence. Atheists are only believers, too, they just believe the opposite of believers.
"goldennib",
Harris deals with this from sentence one.
I strongly resent the notion that "atheism" is "just another "religion." (Others even go so far as to say that "science" or "secularism" is just another "religion.")
Aside from the fact that this argument is foolish (unless you want to say that ANY AND ALL beliefs are equally true / right / valuable -- in which case there's no point in even speaking, since everything everyone says is true), and places any and all religions on an equal plane with Atheism (in which case, what's your point?), Harris alone provided abundant evidence in support of the hypothesis that there is no god (at the very least, no Omniscient Omnipotent All-Loving and Benevolent God).
In my opinion, he doesn't go far enough.
Judging solely by your response, though, I'm guessing you only read the "paragraph" that Kari quoted, and not the entire essay. In which case, I STRONGLY recommend that you read the entire thing. If you do not find it convincing, I would be interested to hear why.
(If you have articles or essays to the contrary, I will gladly read them and respond accordingly.)
But the whole "you just believe the 'opposite' of what we believe" argument is utter rubbish.
An analogy: I believe in Leprechauns. You do not. Would you say that each of our respective beliefs is equally reasonable, and deserving of equal respect and weight? Or, would you say that the burden of proof rests with me, since I believe something patently absurd, for which there is no evidence or proof whatsoever, and for which there is ample and abundant evidence to the contrary?
(I assume you would not simply say that "you just believe the opposite of what I believe in," thus neither of us is right or wrong?)
Harris's point is clear and profound -- if you don't get it, I'm certain I can not express it any better or more clearly than he did, so we're sort of stuck. (Sorry, I'm just not that intelligent.)
If you require "disproof" of everything, though, you MUST (until such "disproof" is provided) believe in not only Leprechauns, but also aliens on Pluto, demons controlling your every thought and action, the gigantic "diamond" Harris mentions, the Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, etc. etc. I'm not being as flippant as you think. Can you PROVE that these beings do not exist? CAN YOU?
The point is, IF there is a God, is he (as everyone assumes) 1.) Omnicient, 2.) Omnipotent, and 3.) Benevolent? Is "He" (or "She" or "It") really watching over planet Earth? Did He/She/It really create the world knowing in advance that such things as Hurricane Katrina (not to mention the Black Plague, the Holocaust, small pox, tuberculosis, polio, and all other diseases, along with all other natural disasters including earthquakes, tornados, floods, draughts, hurricanes, tsunamies, etc. etc. etc.) would take place? And remember, this has NOTHING to do with "Free Will." This is simply senseless pain, suffering, destruction and death that no one can predict, prevent or control.
In short, the "misguided beliefs" are precisely those of the faithful religious believer. Thus, the atheist (being the one who does NOT believe, all evidence being to the contrary) is the sane and reasonable and rational person in this situation.
No?
Explain why this is not the case, please.
And (I have NO IDEA if you are a Christian -- I gather you're not), the whole concept of Heaven and Hell is fraught with severe moral implications that render Christianity nothing more than a violent, controlling, irrational, hypocritical, and ultimately IMMORAL religion. (IMHO.)
I'd be glad to discuss it with you.
But my main point was, don't just say "I respectfully disagree" and expect that statement to hold any weight.
You can either provide REASONS for your beliefs, or you can simply say "I believe this on FAITH" -- in which case anyone can believe absolutely anything, no matter how absurd and insane and patently false, and thus your own beliefs have absolutely no value whatsoever.
ungeziefer:
I accept your challenge, but I will be back.
I did read the entire article, but I want to read it more carefully before I respond to your last post.
It's been a while since I've debated philosophy and I have no handy references.
What I do know is that the absence of proof of one theory does not give proof to it's opposite.
Take for instance, the existance of the Giant Squid. For hundreds of years, people said it existed, but there was no proof because there was no physical body to display. When one washed up on shore and scientists got their hands on it, then there was proof. Does that mean that it wasn't real before the body washed ashore?
goldennib,
I re-read my comment and realized that (in addition to being unnecessarily lengthy) it's a bit mean-spirited. (Think I was in a bad mood when I wrote it.)
While I stand by my statements, the tone was rather nasty, for which I apologize.
I just have no patience for religion.
(And I still think the whole "opposites" idea is misguided.)
Let's talk about something less controversial, like abortion.
Jege: Very funny. But ungeziefer has thrown down the guantlet.
ungeziefer: I appreciate your apology. You were beginning to sound like a religious fanatic. Sorry, I couldn't resist.
I am not a Christian by definition, but I do believe in God. I am not a religious person. I have no time for clubs, regardless of their focus. And I have no need to prove my belief in God. It was not my intention to do so.
To quote from The Atheism Web (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html)
"To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the sceptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test." To me, this says, because it is hard to prove the existance of God, an atheist will believe the opposite because it is easier. And I note, that an assumtion is still the basis for the argument, not a proof of something that is known.
I assume God exists and by His very nature it is hard to prove His existance, therefore, to believe He doesn't exist, someone will have to prove he doesn't.
Also from The Atheism Web http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
"...logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal."
btw - if you prefer to stop, it's fine by me. I have no need to continue. I just like to stretch the old grey matter on occasion. No biggy.
Fuck, I'm always late to this stuff. I have no desire to debate - I did too much in high school and college - but merely state my own beliefs. I don't believe and I don't not believe. Grew up Catholic and when I went to college it really bothered me that I didn't know why I was Catholic when I didn't know enough about it to believe with all my heart. IMO, if you don't educate yourself as much as you possibly can on an issue ascribed to you (political parties, religion), you're just sheep following the flock. I didn't want to be that. I have a lot of problems with religions who purport that THEIR God is the ONLY God. That's a little arrogant of us to assume. And I believe in Science, which certain religions minimize. I'm not afraid to have come from an ape or some sort of fishdog. Actually, it's kind of cool to think we've evolved so much.
I'm rambling. I'm agnostic. I don't believe there is and I don't believe there isn't. I also don't believe there is a "right" one and everyone else is wrong. I think those who think this are idiots, and that's as far as I'm going to name call.
I feel a lot of things about religion and I don't often get a chance to speak on them. Thanks, Kar. It's nice once in awhile to talk about this stuff.
goldennib,
"I assume God exists and by His very nature it is hard to prove His existance, therefore, to believe He doesn't exist, someone will have to prove he doesn't."
I guess I disagree with "assuming" either way. The point is, what reasons do you have for believing what you believe?
Quite simply put, why do you believe in a god?
And, again, if your worldview is "I believe in anything that cannot be disproven," . . . Well, see my earlier comment. Do you believe there are tiny one-eyed elves and Giant Talking Squids who like to dance the tango living on Pluto? Why or why not? Do you believe in BigFoot? The Lockness Monster? UFOs? The Easter Bunny? Invisible zombies?
If not, can you "disprove" the existence of any of these things?
You're correct to note that, if there is a god, it's likely to be difficult for us to know that he/she/it exists; or, I would add, for us to know anything about the deity's nature. (Which is why even if there is a god, I find religion stupid and pointless. I think if God exists, he is offended and/or infinitely amused by the foolish beliefs humans hold about Him.)
But we can at the very least deduce things about God, even if we "assume" He exists. Such as, if there is a God, then clearly His morality bears no relation to that of human beings, since He does many things that we would consider "evil." So it's easy to "prove" that either God does not exist, God does not watch over or interact with our little planet, or else He is not all-powerful, or else He is simply not very nice.
(So, again, even if there is a god -- why worship Him? Why does religion exist?)
And I think we tend to forget that if God wanted us to know that He existed, he would show us. Why does He choose not to? So in that sense, I think your premise actually is false (the premise that if there is a God "by His very nature it is hard to prove His existance."
I'm just popping into this for one second (really). I'll read responses, but probably won't respond any further.
I read the article when it was linked off Cadaver Politik (or was it Silentmouth?), and I thought it was pretty interesting. I tend not to be concerned with people "proving" why atheism or theism is "better," nevertheless I would like people to be more clear about the theological underpinnings/doctrines that they are straw-manning in order to debate.
Ungezeifer, you specifically not only construct the overtly Christian "All-powerful/omnipotent/etc" god before saying, "And (I have NO IDEA if you are a Christian -- I gather you're not), the whole concept of Heaven and Hell is fraught with severe moral implications that render Christianity nothing more than a violent (etc. etc.)". Obviously you're primarily dismissing Christianity as a religion, I just found it funny that prior to worrying about assuming the other person was a Christian... you had already been constructing and then deconstructing Christianity, or at least predominantly Christian concepts. Perhaps you should have prefaced your intial post with "I don't if you're a Christian, but". As I'm sure you know, there are many conceptions of "God" so bizarre or abstracted you'd probably have to read a few books on them (at the least) to strike them down with such knowledgeable zeal.
I'd like to point out that perhaps Buddhism, Taoism, various Native American "religions," Sufism, and any number of other religions would not have some of the critical flaws that you point so harshly at. That's not to say you couldn't find a way to call them pointless, merely that you are using "religion" rather specifically, with pretty clearly Christian-defined precepts.
On the subject of Christianity (and by extension Judaism), I think there are certain aspects of these religions that are redeeming simply due to their actions. The Jewish conception that we can create heaven on earth is beautiful, as are the Liberation Theologians (Christians) who believe that Liberation from opression (in all its forms: poverty, governmental, etc.) is the face of God. Perhaps these groups believe in Leprechauns, but they use their Leprechaun-based belief to go out and actually DO wonderfully positive things in the world.
Most atheists I know (and I would probably count myself in that crowd) are quite intelligent people. Intellectuals, mildly bourgeois, and loud. They don't seem to DO as much they seem to think needs to be done (Again, a rather apt description of myself). I'm not sure why this is, perhaps if you don't believe in something greater the shitty aspects of the world loom a little larger, seem a little harder to overcome. Nevertheless, whether it is a sort of stylized insanity that drives religious folk to help, improve, and devote their entire lives to the improvement of those around them, I still find those religiously motivated activists to be inspiring and admirable. They will devote years of their lives, all they have... larger sacrifices than I can even contemplate. All I've ever done is help the impoverished for a few hours and march in some stupid rallys. I guess I just wonder if being that giving has to have a little finger in the "out there" in order to get some traction in a shitty world.
Again I must stress this note isn't really directed at the intial comments you made. I'm not here to rally for Christ or anything like that, and as far as believing in God I think I've made it pretty clear that I do not. I'm not sure if I'm a better person for it though.
It's quite easy to point to atrocity that isn't religiously based. If this is a commentary about the terrible and violent nature of humanity, so be it. But, I guess what I'm saying is I feel there are cases where I've seen people that I was willing to overlook the fact that they believe in something outside of my realm of belief. Because even though I couldn't see their religion, I could see the good deeds they did because of it. And that, for whatever reason, is good enough for me.
I'm not trying to be insanely passive-agressive, but as I said I probably won't be commenting further on this topic. Feel free to e-mail, and I will read responses. Back to the games!! (Go Goldennib, Kari, Ung, and Jurgen. It's... your ...birthday..?)
.dlf.
Uh... dammit.
That wasn't the preview button. Well anyway, you all get that post in all of its un-edited glory. Any comment about grammar, spelling or sentence structure will cause me to cry.
;)
Also, I should be clear (since there are at least two/three others who said they were atheists during the course of the posts) that when I speak of "Atheists I know" I am referring to my group of friends at skewl (and those devout Atheists who like to take religion classes. Freaks). :)
.dlf
I may be late but I'm gonna join in.
It sounds to me like you are both arguing Faith, which would be like arguing Love.....you can't argue or disagree with a feeling.
Just like I have Faith that my car will start tomorrow, it's possible it won't.
I have Faith that there is a God....but again,I can agree it's possible, there's not.
So for someone to tell me I'm wrong (and vice versa) really is kind of pointless.
I'm gonna have Faith regardless and so is the athiest.
[I am a protestant, I believe in God and I believe it's possible Jesus existed and was a swell guy but was not the actual son of God. I believe that God has nothing to do with the evils of this world, because you can't have Joy without Misery and Misery without Joy....It's a part of Nature....like Goldennib said]
".d" . . .
I agree with you, by and large.
Basically, if your (by "your" I mean "one's") ludicrous beliefs cause you (ibid.) to do good things and help people, I'm all for it and I don't really care much what your religion is or if your motives are not pure empathy for your fellow man but merely a selfish desire to get into "Heaven" or avoid "Hell" or whatever.
And you are absolutely correct that I perceive "God" (with the requisite capital "G") through a monotheistic Christian lens.
My excuse:
1.) Being pretty much a text-book example of the disillusioned Catholic (yes, I am technically a confirmed Catholic -- though to be perfectly honest I cannot remember ever believing in God -- seriously, the earliest memory I have on the subject is realizing [perhaps age 5??] that such things as vampires, werewolves, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, ghosts, monsters, . . . angels, gods . . . are all just made up).
2.) I'm admittedly pretty ignorant about other religions (I've read a bit, like everybody, but don't know much). But if someone wishes to explain to me why I should believe in Zeus, or Thor, or Dionysus, or Apollo, or Allah, or Shiva, or whomever/whatever else, I will be glad to listen. I just don't see much difference, because I think it's all nonsense, frankly.
A quote (my brother used this as his email signature for a while):
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
--Stephen F Roberts
3.) Christianity is the major, dominant religion of the country/culture in which I live. I am not affected by Judaism, Islam (well, I guess we're all affected by Islam right now to an extent . . .), Buddhism or Hinduism, etc. etc.. I almost never encounter people holding these beliefs, in fact. And they, at least, are not on a crusade to take over my country. (Yes, it's mine. I own it. You can't have it. My ancestors stole this country fair and square.) :|
4.) The whole "I don't know if you're a Christian" business was me attacking Christianity (cause I like to do that) while qualifying that I was not necessarily attacking the person I had been addressing, and was not assuming that she was a Chrsitian.
5.) Monotheism seems to be commonly accepted -- ever since, what? Kant, maybe? (The whole idea of God as being defined, necessarily, as all-powerful and all-knowing -- otherwise He's not really God, just some higher being, and perhaps one of many.) Personally, I actually think it makes MUCH more sense (if you believe in higher beings) to believe in many gods -- perhaps some good, some evil, and all of them fighting a lot. That, at least, would explain some things . . .
6.) Why am I numbering things all the time? It's idiotic. I shall stop.
As far as the morality of the religious person . . .
Again, I agree that many, many people, of various religious persuasions, do more to help their fellow man than I ever have or probably ever will -- and I respect and commend them for it.
However . . .
There is still a fundamental (and not trivial) problem with the motivation for these "good" actions, and thus with this whole system. They're doing these things because they read it in a book (all right -- I'm going to stick with Christians again, cause, hell, it's just easier as a case in point), which they believe to be the infallible Word Of God. Sure, most people don't ACTUALLY take it literally throughout or interpret every word as "gospel" (hence, few people now call for stoning of adulterers, disobedient children, etc.). Nevertheless: what if this book -- rather than instructing them to "love their neighbor" and "do unto others," etc. -- instead instructed them to kill all the heretics -- that is, all the non-Christians? What if it said "all Infidels deserve to die," or "women should be subservient" (O.K., that one IS from the Bible)? What if it said "the rich shall inherit the earth"; "the poor and weak should be exterminated"?
It's very, very dangerous. VERY DANGEROUS.
(O.K., I'll just come out and say it: religion scares the shit out of me.)
"jodi" --
"Faith" to me is valueless. It's the desperate last resort that religious people fall back on when they lose arguments (that is, run out of reasons to justify their beliefs).
What makes one person's "faith" any different or better than another's?
I might very well have "faith" in the belief that I am God, or that David Koresh is God, or that my pet lobster Ferdinand is God, or that God lives inside the old jar of mayonaisse in my refrigerator door, or that God is talking to me through the TV . . . Etc. Etc. Etc. Can one believe in absolutely anything?
If so, fine. (Though it still scares me. And, I still don't understand how you can choose to simply have "faith" in one thing and not the other -- WHY don't you believe that my lobster is god? Hmm? HMMM??? Bow down and worship my lobster, damn you!)
But, if you DON'T think a person can/should believe absolutely anything at all, you have to offer REASONS for your beliefs. (Not to ME, necessarily -- but at least to yourself.)
In short, why do you believe what you do?
(You can accuse me of a LACK of faith -- I wholeheartedly agree. But atheism as a "faith"??? You'll have to explain that one, please.)
Since this has the potential to actually become a full-fledged debate, I thought I would post another link here that I very highly recommend:
Interview With An Atheist - David Mills
Put quite simply:
Assuming one is willing and able to believe in a god (I am not):
How is one to choose a god?
ungeziefer,
Faith isn't a fall back to win the argument, It's simply a feeling. I have Faith there's a God without all that other stuff (ie. I think the Bible is crap mostly, based on a few true stories but dramatized for entertainment)the same as you have Faith there isn't a God.
I don't think you should believe in God if you don't want to or feel it in your heart to do so.I don't think you'll go to hell for it either as some fund. christians may think.(If you want to worship a lobster, then more power to ya, as long as your Lobsterthesim doesn't hurt anyone)
MY GOD is not a being who would punish someone for all eternity for not believing.
The God most christians believe in via the Bible seems to me to be one who is awfully egotistical (Believe in me or rot in Hell), Sexist (Women must bow to men's needs and shut up) and sadistic (the world will end with mass pain and suffering but believers end up in heaven)
No, I believe the Bible has it all wrong and was written for the time with some good intentions but over the years has been misinterpreted, mistranslated, and taken way too literally.
Why do I believe in a God at all?
Because I have to.
I have to believe there is more after we die, and I have enough faith in the general idea (wrap all religions up like a big fat burrito) that there is one mighty power who sits on his couch staring at the universe and flips through the channels watching us like a reality TV show. He set the stage and now we are acting it out.
I don't think anyone is "right" in their beliefs and we won't find out until we die.
But for me, I believe what I believe because it allows me to get out of bed every morning, not fear Death, and try to do my best at being a good person in life.
Good debate, btw
I really don't know how to choose a God. As I said, I suppose I would be inclined to pursue a God that brought out the best in me (perhaps a best that I could not actualize without said God). I like Liberation Theology quite a bit, but like all religious studies it's merely a thought experiment for this guy (points to self).
There are 1.1 BILLION Secular/Non-Religous/Agnostic/Atheists in the world. Technically when someone says "The Largest Three Belief Systems" they are speaking of, in descending order:
(Numbering for Ung. :))
1.) Christianity (all types, all makes, all models [2.1 Billion])
2.) Islam (Weighing in at a beefy 1.3 Billion)
3.) Which makes secular/atheist-type people a strong third with only 200 million less than Islam.
So, taking that into account I understand why you would angle so heartily at Christianity, but I was not trying to rally for Christ. I'm simply saying that many of the issues you have with "religion" seem to actually be issues with "Christianity," and to compartmentalize "religion" into merely Christian-themed thoughts of religion...
Well it just seems rather unfair. Christianity is teh sux0rz, and historically has been even worse teh sux0rz. Nevertheless there are religions with adherents who have never killed a thing, including bugs... (Jains), there are religions that have no heaven or hell, or God to speak of (Buddhism)... There are religious thinkers who have abstracted God beyond my understanding (if I was to say I ever understood) such as the Process Theologian Hartshorne (Spelling might be wrong, don't quote me).
Hmm. I must sum up. Humperdink will marry Buttercup in little less than half an hour...
Wait, wrong sum up.
Basically, I agree. Religion can be stupid, it can provide false motivations (Now THERE'S an argument I would like to have, but now doesn't seem the time. But tell me about "pure empathy". Is that like "absolute altruism"?), I agree that its history is shady, the Crusaders were bad people, burning witches is not ok, slaying indigenous folk just because they don't like your God isn't fun, and enslaving a race of people and telling them that is there "role" as defined by the Bible (Ham, I believe, was the justification) is atrocious.
All that said, I still think there are redeeming traits to Christianity. Certain strains, certain people, certain uses. It's not "bad motivation" if someone says "I want to be like Christ. Christ helped the poor, strove for equality, and preached non-violence, so I am going to attempt to walk in Jesus' footsteps." There's no God in there, no heaven, no hell. And there are Christians that are EXACTLY like that (I know one of them, his name is Chris. He's insanely nice.), and even beyond that I don't feel comfortable excising religion from a world before at least taking a look at varying perspectives. You say you're troubled by the motivation of being led by a book, and that's just patently absurd. We don't create moral aptitude and understanding in a vacuum. What's wrong with reading in the bible that you should respect your fellow human and treat the poor with kindness. Be giving. Don't be violent, et al.. The line between philosophers that you like, and theologians that 'religious' people may like is probably a lot more faint than you give credit.
I guess I'm not interested in peoples personal lives until they intersect with mine. If you are diggin' on Christ-Flakes and you want me to share a bowl, and I would be pleased to discuss why I don't like that particular brand. If you proselytize and tell me I'm going to hell, you bother me... but I'm still not particularly concerned. I have friends that tell me I'm a bad person because I don't support the local mission much. People judge me from all sorts of vantage points, so I try to (also) just let that be. But see, when violence, systemic discrimination, racism, or oppression are the end results of any viewpoint, be it the secular military man, the secular opportunistic capitalist, the religious zealot or the fundie-conservanator, that's when I'm concerned. That's also when I feel authorized to say/do something about it. But, other than that... I guess it's like Jodi said. It's a feeling, she believes it... So that's cool. We can coexist right? I assume so.
Although, I think if you realized that death REALLY was the end, you'd be way more freaked out by death in the world, you'd be (even more?) apalled at how much we spend on healthcare versus war, etc. etc. etc.
I'm sure Dustin can make that list a little more impacting. I do find that it seems easier to be "ok" with poverty, illness and death when you're living for the "next kingdom."
But that's a bit tangential (like this entire comment).
So much for not responding. ;)
I hope that made sense, I'm not going to review this one either because it felt so good last time (and I have to get going on some reading).
I'll check back later! Keep up the debate! Woohooooo!
:D
.dlf.
We must not seek the child Jesus
in the pretty figures of our Christmas cribs.
We must seek him among the undernourished children
who have gone to bed at night with nothing to eat,
among the poor newsboys
who will sleep covered with newspapers in doorways.
Archbishop Oscar Romero, December 24, 1979
Since we're quoting and all... ;)
Romero is pretty neat, I studied him in my Lib. Theo. class for a bit. He was shot by an assassin about a year later during Mass. He was running around during the El Salvador civil war/death squad crap. Actually that Oliver Stone movie "Salvador" has an account of his assassination.
Anyway. Not really related, but whatever.
.dlf.
Wow.
I'm with Jodi and .dlf. If you want to believe in leprechans, have at it as long as you don't want to force me to believe what you believe. That's why we live in the good ole US of A.
I think what you really object to un. is the bad that is done in the name of religion and not just Christianity. People throughout millenium have used religion to get what they want.
I believe in God because I have personal experience with seeing and speaking to him (I use the male pronoun just cause it's easy.) You know, anecdotal proof, which holds no weight in debate, but it's why I believe...it's why I know.
And to me God is not exclusive or just one way. He is what we each need, personally. God could be in someone's TV or Zeus or whatever. God won't get mad at anyone if they don't believe, He understands.
I think when we die, the essence of who we are goes back to the great All and we merge with its energy, like a big warm hug and we are no longer alone and seperate, but part of perfectness.
There is no proof one way or the other for us lowly humans as to the existance of God. It's really just a mental exercise.
And the Bible is often miss quoted or wrongly translated. For instance, the sixth commandment as we usually remember it is, Thou shallt not kill. It is correctly translated as Thou shallt not commit murder. Changes the meaning a bit.
Forgive the mis-spellings. I'm tired.
Goldennib said---"I think when we die, the essence of who we are goes back to the great All and we merge with its energy, like a big warm hug and we are no longer alone and seperate, but part of perfectness."
Wow, I really like that.
Actually any one see "What Dreams may come"? I kinda pictured the afterlife being like that....whatever YOUR version of Heaven would be, will be.
I think my faith in there being Life after Death is actually stronger then my Faith in God. It is probably what proves it for me too, or is at least a part of the evidence for me.
There are too many enlightened people on this blog to have a good heated argument, damnit. We need some crazy fundamentalists in here to make things interesting . . .
I guess, in terms of the "Afterlife," my main hangup is similar -- that is, I just can't believe that people actually believe what they profess to.
I'm inclined to believe the opposite of the old adage "there are no atheists in foxholes" -- I think "there are no believers in foxholes." That is, even people who managed to actually convince themselves throughout their lives that death is not the end, and who at some point REALLY BELIEVED in an afterlife -- even those people, when faced with death, ultimately understand completely that this life is all there is.
Maybe I'm just too cynical -- or, paradoxically, I have too much faith in mankind and reason, which probably IS a form of "faith" -- but I think very few people TRULY believe in the afterlife -- otherwise, they really wouldn't care about death, even of those they loved most dearly. Yes, they'd be sad for themselves, in that they would not be able to share the rest of their own life with that person. But, personally, if I really believed in Heaven or a Glorious Oneness Of Ultimate Being or whatever, I just don't think I'd care about death much. Or at all, actually.
In fact, provided I did not simultaneously believe in a Deity or other Entity which frowned upon suicide, my religion would be founded on suicide.
(Not really. But you get the point.)
"goldennib" said:
"I believe in God because I have personal experience with seeing and speaking to him"
I guess my questions would be: 1.) What does He/She/It look like, and 2.) when you spoke to him, did He reply?
On a slightly more serious level, does it not follow, then, that unless one has had such a direct personal experience of God, he or she has no reason to believe?
And, yes, I know you don't care what anyone believes. (I'm working on Chapter 1 of my new lobster-worshipping religious tome, by the way. The Leprechauns don't come in until Chapter 4 . . .) But that mystifies me a bit, too. Even if the "Deity" that you believe in does not care what any humans believe, if you really believe in this god, don't you sort of want other people to know/believe that this Being exists, too? Or is it really that irrelevant?
(Trust me, I'm not saying you need to become a missionary or evangelical or something -- but that is the one part I sort of understand about religious people trying to "convert" others -- especially if they actually believe those others are going to Hell, etc.)
".d." --
"What's wrong with reading in the bible that you should respect your fellow human and treat the poor with kindness. Be giving. Don't be violent, et al.. The line between philosophers that you like, and theologians that 'religious' people may like is probably a lot more faint than you give credit."
I think you missed my point. I'm actually a fan of that Jesus guy. (And, yeah, Christians who really try to follow his example are A.O.K., in my book. The hypocrites and phony self-righteous pseudo-Christians like the Religious Right are the ones who piss me off.) And I'm sure I would gain a lot from reading the insights contained in many other religious texts, also. However, I trust you will agree that there's a difference between reading a book and saying," hey, pretty good book, lots of interesting stuff in there, I'd recommend it"; and perceiving said book as the infallible "Word Of God" that must be absolutely obeyed and cannot be questioned.
In general, I seem to be approaching this whole religion business from a different angle than everyone else is taking. Everyone else commenting here seems to be suggesting that you should just believe whatever you feel like, and pick and choose the religion whose message you like, or that makes you happy, or whatever. My approach is simply to ask: "Is this true?"
(Wow. I re-read this real quick like, and I'm tempted to count up how many times I used the word "believe" or some variation thereof. Do I write like George Bush speaks?? "Terror blah blah blah blah blah Saddam blah Terror blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah Evil Doers blah blah blah Terrorists blah blah Terror blah blah blah Weapons Of Mass Destruction blah blah Terror blah blah blah 9/11 . . . . . . . .")
By the way, ".d." --
My disdain for religion is only partly because of human actions and [what I see as] human folly.
A lot of it has to do with the fact that, as I've said, if there is a God, He appears to be a Bastard (I'll respect Him enough to give him a capital "B.")
Or, to quote Woody Allen, "An underachiever at best."
Anyway, the next time any of you speak with The Almighty, ask Him why He created cancer, AIDs, flu, the Black Plague, polio, tuberculosis, etc. etc. etc. etc. Then get back to me, please.
un. - Your foxhole idea is discounted by the many people who have survived horrors beyond imagining who have said their faith in God kept them going. Holocost survivors' accounts usually share this element.
God looks like a perfect spring day and he told me on several occasions that I was capable of making it through another day.
All fundamentalists, regardless of their specific beliefs, piss me off.
I am not afraid of death, although the manner in which I die concerns me (in bed while asleep would be good.) I am not sad for the people who die. I do think they are in a better place, the best place as a matter of fact. I am sad because they are no longer with us, and I miss them.
You anger over God allowing disasters is understandable. You are not alone and I don't have all of the answers. But I think part of it is we as humans ascribe a sense of evil to things that are natural processes. Do we say when a lion rips a water buffalo apart for dinner (I don't know if lions eat water baffalo)that God should prevent this evil. God created the spark of life in this setting and we as humans are meant to work out the best way to deal with it. Free will is key. And in order exercise Free Will we need challenges.
No, I don't think I need to convert anyone. God's a big boy. He can take care of himself.
"God's a big boy." . . .
Couldn't help but be reminded of a prayer from Monty Python's "The Life Of Brian" :
“Oh Lord, you are so big,
so absolutely huge,
gosh we're all really impressed down here, I can tell you.
Forgive us, O Lord, for this dreadful
toadying and barefaced flattery,
but you are so strong and,
well, just so super…fantastic.
Amen.”
And now, a hymn:
"Oh Lord, please don’t burn us,
don't grill or toast your flock,
don't put us on the barbecue,
or simmer us in stock,
don't braise or bake or boil us,
or stir-fry us in a wok.
Please don't lightly poach us,
or baste us with hot fat,
don't fricassee or roast us,
or boil us in a vat,
and please don't stick thy servants Lord,
in a Rotissomat…”
And, just to add to the discussion, here's a link I found whilst looking for the Monty Python quotes:
Prayer - Is It Good?
God thinks Monty Python is very funny.
Now, you just started on another topic that is very involved. Pray is a tool that can be used for good or evil as can all human endeavors. Each of the aspects of prayer as outlined by the author can be very healthy aspects of a person's life. Again, how people use and abuse it, with themselves or others, is a human fault, not God's. How humans perceive God, or not, is also a human issue, not God's. It's an ever evolving and personal, process. But, then again, I don't believe in organized religion as a way to relate to God. Religion is a social issue, in my opinion, not a spiritual one.
Post a Comment