Atheism Is For The Weak

[pug]

Superstitious AND nonsense

 

AND

 

Superstitious nonsense

 

 

there's a difference (note: no "AND" it's used as an adjective)

 

 

superstitious can be nonsense

 

science can be nonsense

 

you can talk nonsense

 

 

superstitious nonsense = oxymoron like "repeat again"

[Lycorth]

I wonder if even Pug understands a damned word he types...

[pug]

it is in fact a closed system that does not allow for other possible answers

there are thousands of denominations within this closed system...

 

For example, Christian Science is open to other ideas and freedom of possibilities...

Like mainstream Christianity, Christian Science teaches the existence of an all-powerful God and the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Christian Scientists also believe the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus to be essential to human redemption. Mrs. Eddy taught belief in one God and described God with the synonyms: Principle, Soul, Mind, Spirit, Life, Truth, and Love. Christian Science also departs from traditional Christianity in several doctrines.

 

And what about OP's Christian Negative Theology - is she not growing?

 

..have you every changed some of your ideas about things you've believed about the Bible and God?

after visiting this site, yes, like Amanda told me, you all sure made me do my homework. Please resist asking which... ok, the Bible has man-made errors.. (Lutherans believe it is inerrant).

[pug]

A lot of people are fine with that, but that's not for me. I needed to grow.

 

Thanks Antlerman for taking the time to respond to my sarcastic, uncouth posts. Thanks too for your timely and measured words of advice (God must have send you). All your posts are nothing short of award-winning. Not only do you always keep a sense of calm and politeness.. you also offer a gentle way out for the other poor unschooled dude without a trace of offence. Commendable.

[crazy-tiger]

Superstitious AND nonsense

 

AND

 

Superstitious nonsense

 

 

there's a difference (note: no "AND" it's used as an adjective)

 

 

superstitious can be nonsense

 

science can be nonsense

 

you can talk nonsense

 

 

superstitious nonsense = oxymoron like "repeat again"

Bad luck to walk under ladders... it's superstitious but it also makes sense. (if someone's up a ladder painting, it's taking a chance to walk under it...)

[crazy-tiger]

For example, Christian Science is open to other ideas and freedom of possibilities...

As long as it conforms to the Bible...

[Antlerman]

Thanks Antlerman for taking the time to respond to my sarcastic, uncouth posts. Thanks too for your timely and measured words of advice (God must have send you). All your posts are nothing short of award-winning. Not only do you always keep a sense of calm and politeness.. you also offer a gentle way out for the other poor unschooled dude without a trace of offence. Commendable.

 

Wow. Thank you. That’s a very nice compliment.

 

I can’t promise I’ll never show sarcasm myself though. It depends what sets me off.

 

it is in fact a closed system that does not allow for other possible answers

there are thousands of denominations within this closed system...

 

For example, Christian Science is open to other ideas and freedom of possibilities...

Like mainstream Christianity, Christian Science teaches the existence of an all-powerful God and the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Christian Scientists also believe the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus to be essential to human redemption. Mrs. Eddy taught belief in one God and described God with the synonyms: Principle, Soul, Mind, Spirit, Life, Truth, and Love. Christian Science also departs from traditional Christianity in several doctrines.

Let me try to clarify. Sure there are host of options within the system, but it is still a closed system. In the simplest example, does the system allow for the possibility there is no God? If not, then you have closed the system, you have closed possibilities.

 

When you have a mindset that something are impossible, you have limited your thinking. In reality, there is no way we can know for sure that something is impossible. In an open system, all possibilities are explored. I am open to there being a god, but I see no compelling reason to explore it as a very likely possibility. But if some evidence were to come along that was reasonable and strong, then my attitude that “anything is possible” will allow me to view it as something to consider.

 

On the other hand, someone approaching knowledge in a closed system, such as Christianity, is opposed to all things being possible and will consequently limit where knowledge can take them. This limits growth tremendously, IMO, because in all cases these limits of possibility are based on personal fears, on personal biases under the banner of “faith” and “truth”. The things that people accept on faith are not objective knowledge, but personal emotional needs. So, when you take those emotional biases and place them into a system that locks the door by calling them authoritative, divine absolutes, you just shut yourself out of other truths that might better serve you.

And what about OP's Christian Negative Theology - is she not growing?

Yes, OM is growing. I know her beliefs fairly well, and her views of God take the ceiling and move it way back from what most Christian put on God through literalist and anthropomorphic theologies. I would say her views are far healthier in that they allow for much more possibilities about truth and meaning, than the narrow definitions that traditional Christianity offers.

 

However that said, if she were to say it is impossible that her view that God exists could be mistaken, then she would be limiting the possibility of other ways of understanding the world. I don’t believe she does that though.

[Lycorth]

For example, Christian Science is open to other ideas and freedom of possibilities...

As long as it conforms to the Bible...

 

Their own version of the Babble, moreover - in True Xian™ fashion

[Trancelation]

I just want to add something real quick: there is absolutely nothing with the term 'superstitious nonsense.' In no way is it an oxymoron.

 

Definitions of oxymoron: A paradox reduced to two words, usually in an adjective-noun ("eloquent silence") or adverb-adjective ("inertly strong") relationship, and is used for effect, to emphasize contrasts, incongruities, hypocrisy, or simply the complex nature of reality. Examples: wise fool, ignorantly learned, laughing sadness, pious hate.

 

Meaning established by the association of incongruous or contradictory words. Ex: "Military Intelligence" "Silent scream" "Cafeteria food"

 

A contradiction in terms, sometimes an error and sometime a figure of speech.

 

Right. I hope this drives the point home. Since the words are not contradictory, they cannot be an oxymoron. Redundant, perhaps, but even that would be a hard argument to press. Nor is 'repeat again' an oxymoron. Hope that helps.

[Mythra]

Well, I didn't really mind Pug erroneously taking issue with the term "superstitious nonsense".

 

It was better than getting a long explanation from Pug of how Jesus may be invisible, but he was more than able to see him with his Spiritual Eyes.

[Antlerman]

I did make this observation quite often, that you can take two sincere faithful believers and have them both read the same piece of scripture and have them both pray vehemently to god for enlightenment, and they will both come up with different interpretations. If both have the guidance and indwelling of the holy spirit, why isn't he sending everyone the same message?

Can I offer a thought? Is it because God wants to teach people that the truth is what makes sense to them as individuals? That truth is an individual reality, rather than some external truth?

 

It has to be that if God's guiding them in coming to different understandings, doesn't it?

[Legion]

Can I offer a thought? Is it because God wants to teach people that the truth is what makes sense to them as individuals? That truth is an individual reality, rather than some external truth?

I am coming to believe that the word "truth" is tainted and carries too much baggage. I would rather say that we have models of the world that allow us to anticipate events with more or less accuracy. Accordingly I also think that not all models have equal merit.

 

If one person can better anticipate the events in a certain domain than another then I would say that person has a better perspective in that domain.

[Antlerman]

Can I offer a thought? Is it because God wants to teach people that the truth is what makes sense to them as individuals? That truth is an individual reality, rather than some external truth?

I am coming to believe that the word "truth" is tainted and carries too much baggage. I would rather say that we have models of the world that allow us to anticipate events with more or less accuracy. Accordingly I also think that not all models have equal merit.

 

If one person can better anticipate the events in a certain domain than another then I would say that person has a better perspective in that domain.

Well, sure... but who's going to adopt that language? You have "motwtautaewmola" as an abbreviation of what you just said, and it's just too difficult to say. Truth means lots of things, like love.

[Legion]

Can I offer a thought? Is it because God wants to teach people that the truth is what makes sense to them as individuals? That truth is an individual reality, rather than some external truth?

I am coming to believe that the word "truth" is tainted and carries too much baggage. I would rather say that we have models of the world that allow us to anticipate events with more or less accuracy. Accordingly I also think that not all models have equal merit.

 

If one person can better anticipate the events in a certain domain than another then I would say that person has a better perspective in that domain.

Well, sure... but who's going to adopt that language? You have "motwtautaewmola" as an abbreviation of what you just said, and it's just too difficult to say. Truth means lots of things, like love.

I suppose that few would be willing to adopt that language. I just can't help but balk at the suggestion that "truth is an individual reality." Many of us want the best available models and those models are known to be good because they are, in some sense, a truth that can be shared. That is, that individuals are not their sole proprietors. They hold true for all those who utilize them.

[Antlerman]

I suppose that few would be willing to adopt that language. I just can't help but balk at the suggestion that "truth is an individual reality." Many of us want the best available models and those models are known to be good because they are, in some sense, a truth that can be shared. That is, that individuals are not their sole proprietors. They hold true for all those who utilize them.

Oh goody! Conversation fodder!

 

So if you feel love, do you have to have it validated for it to be true to you, or is this an individual perception that is unique to you? Isn't shared truth mostly about working together in a group?

 

Consider the word "overlap" when it comes to individual truth meeting shared truth. The difficulty is in finding a language that allows these unique perceptions of reality to intersect in a way that is acceptable to each person. Hence the language of mathematics in science, or the language of mythology infused into cultures, both secular and religious.

 

There is a difference between subjective truth and objective truth. (Even so, objective truth is not absolute because of the human factor, shared or otherwise ).

[pug]

Since the words are not contradictory, they cannot be an oxymoron.

 

Sometimes, the labelling of an otherwise non-paradox expression as a perceived oxymoron is made on the basis of substituting an alternative, non-intended meaning for the meaning normally intended in the context of the expression in question. For instance, in the expression Civil war, the term civil is normally intended to mean "between citizens of the same state". In this sense, the expression is neither paradox nor self-contradictory. However, if one forcibly construes civil in the sense of 'non-military' or 'reasonable and polite', the expression may become a perceived contradiction in terms. Such designations of alleged oxymora are often made with a humorous purpose.

 

A more subtle rhetorical manoeuvre in designating an expression XY as an "oxymoron", often used for either humorous or polemical purposes, is to pick out a perceived or alleged property of objects of type Y, re-construe that property as if it were a defining criterion of Y, and then demonstrate that it is contradicted by X. For instance, if one were to claim that "honest Politician" was an oxymoron, this would imply the claim that Politicians, by definition, are dishonest. Other expressions which have been designated oxymora in such a fashion include: Microsoft Works, corporate ethics and military intelligence.

 

Both the above strategies can be seen combined in an example like "military intelligence". First, the term "intelligence" is re-construed as meaning not "information gathering" but "intellectual power"; then it is implied that militaristic people are, by definition, not intelligent.

[pug]

Can I offer a thought? Is it because God wants to teach people that the truth is what makes sense to them as individuals? That truth is an individual reality, rather than some external truth?

 

It has to be that if God's guiding them in coming to different understandings, doesn't it?

 

be careful... wouldn't that be them there tap dancing talk all Christians are so cleverly trained to spout? But i think your reply is subjectively-objectively true and politically correct. How i wish i can word it thus. Great stuff.

[crazy-tiger]

Since the words are not contradictory, they cannot be an oxymoron.

 

Sometimes, the labelling of an otherwise non-paradox expression as a perceived oxymoron is made on the basis of substituting an alternative, non-intended meaning for the meaning normally intended in the context of the expression in question. For instance, in the expression Civil war, the term civil is normally intended to mean "between citizens of the same state". In this sense, the expression is neither paradox nor self-contradictory. However, if one forcibly construes civil in the sense of 'non-military' or 'reasonable and polite', the expression may become a perceived contradiction in terms. Such designations of alleged oxymora are often made with a humorous purpose.

 

A more subtle rhetorical manoeuvre in designating an expression XY as an "oxymoron", often used for either humorous or polemical purposes, is to pick out a perceived or alleged property of objects of type Y, re-construe that property as if it were a defining criterion of Y, and then demonstrate that it is contradicted by X. For instance, if one were to claim that "honest Politician" was an oxymoron, this would imply the claim that Politicians, by definition, are dishonest. Other expressions which have been designated oxymora in such a fashion include: Microsoft Works, corporate ethics and military intelligence.

 

Both the above strategies can be seen combined in an example like "military intelligence". First, the term "intelligence" is re-construed as meaning not "information gathering" but "intellectual power"; then it is implied that militaristic people are, by definition, not intelligent.

Baffle with Bullshit 101?

 

 

Why can't you just admit that you made a mistake?

[Legion]

So if you feel love, do you have to have it validated for it to be true to you, or is this an individual perception that is unique to you? Isn't shared truth mostly about working together in a group?

If I experience love then I think it would be childishly naïve to believe that whatever emotions and thoughts I may be having are a hitherto unknown experience. And if we’re talking about sharing then we’re speaking of more than one individual.

 

Consider the word "overlap" when it comes to individual truth meeting shared truth. The difficulty is in finding a language that allows these unique perceptions of reality to intersect in a way that is acceptable to each person. Hence the language of mathematics in science, or the language of mythology infused into cultures, both secular and religious.

Right, I would assert that both mathematics and mythology are means to share or transmit methods of inference. And both are constructs of the mind. They manifest their usefulness when they can be incorporated into models. That’s why I feel that mythology is not devoid of value. Mythology, just as mathematics, can help give shape to our protean capacity to infer.

 

There is a difference between subjective truth and objective truth. (Even so, objective truth is not absolute because of the human factor, shared or otherwise ).

Again here instead of using the words “subjective truth” and “objective truth” I would probably be inclined to use “inference” and “causality” respectively. I agree with you that causality is only known by setting it in a certain relation (a modeling relation) with inference. All experience has an indelible subjective component.

[NotBlinded]

Nah - we need no thanks. Our chosen path is our reward

 

I did not thank thee. If i thanked you - it would mean, please go ahead, one less soul for me to save.

 

I offered my congratualations. As in: Behold the unknown, looks like fun, let's leap into that. So here's my belated congratulations on your desire to leap into the unknown.

Pug, you are also in the unknown. You just won't admit it. We're all in this together and what you believe can no more be proven true than what someone else believes. But, I don't think it's the truth that really draws you in...I think it's comfort from the unknown. It really doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as you're not lost in unknowing.

 

The only difference is is that we can admit we don't know. That takes more courage than to simply accept something as true because it brings comfort. The truth is still unknown not matter what you believe.

[NotBlinded]

OK, never mind, you don't have all the answers but you're on your way. Every known religion can say that. It's just that Christians believe that theirs is the only one. And every religion also lay claim to that. When will that end? Interfaith dialogue seems to work. Shall we not just agree to disagree? Much more peaceful.

So, where is the truth in this statement? Wait...I see it...we don't have all the answers! Yes, that is it. So, why would anyone of any faith claim that they did to the point of having to agree to disagree? It would be much more peaceful if eveyone accepted the truth that "they don't have all the answers".

 

That is the only truth that can be found anywhere when speaking of the metaphysical. The truth runs and hides when one group claims to know what it is. It then becomes a pissing match of egos which has nothing to do with the truth.

 

Since no one knows the Truth™, there can be no claim made to it. Makes sense huh?

[NotBlinded]

How much courage does it take to stand for nothing? None.

How much courage does it take to defend nothing? None.

How much intellect does it take to defend nothing? None.

Definitely for the weak.

 

Do you think so?

 

Christians will justify and rationalize a god who condones slavery, supports subjugation of women, enjoys innocent animals being sacrificed to him, orders genocide and infanticide. They will find a way to explain away the fact that prayer does nothing. They will feign a deep love for god, and overstate their experiences to try to convince others. They will give up a sizeable portion of their incomes and time. And, when you get right down to it, what is the ultimate motive? FEAR OF HELL.

 

We, on the other hand - believe so strongly that christianity is wrong, that we are betting eternity on the fact that we are correct. We stand up for what we believe in, even in the face of threats of eternal, unspeakable horror. We take a stand against the atrocities attributed to yahweh, and if those accounts were true, we would declare god guilty and wash our hands of his shameful conduct.

 

We have all, in our own way, managed to get beyond the superstitious fears that once ruled our hearts. We've taken deep breaths and taken the leap into the unknown.

 

The folks on this site are an incredibly courageous lot. And I'm proud to be associated with them.

 

 

Wow. What can I say? You are a person of courage. Responding to my post and all. And as I read you post, all I can say is, Wow.

 

Welcome to the world of questions. Lots of em here. No answers, just questions. Lots of confusion and questions. You don't know what you stand for, just what you stand against. I noticed that in your post. I also noticed that you have a warped idea of what Christianity is. So I guess you're standing against your warped view of Christianity, and not actual Christianity. You'll fit in well. I haven't encountered anyone here who understands Christianity. So welcome you brave soul. Post random courageous thoughts. What could be more courageous than posting on a random message board.

You're a redneck aren't you? Just guessing from your intelligent posts.

 

Thank you for welcoming us to the real world. I wish you could join us. I know it's hard to give up a comfortable world that exists in your fantasies, but you are still welcome.

 

Please...I think your understanding of Christianity is what is warped IG. You can claim all the truth you wish, but it doesn't make it any more true than someone's elses. You are floating along in this same universe just as we are. The only difference is that you have chosen comfort and sought answers regardless of their truth value. Are you all comfy and cozy IG? That doesn't make all the unknowns suddenly become known just because you believe it does. The rest of us still continue to search, and can admit that we don't have all the answers.

 

You don't have the answers either IG, you just think you do. As long as you're all warm inside because all of life's mysteries have been revealed to you, you can just sit back and enjoy the little ride called life. Just think...no one would have to ever question anything anymore! How silly of us to question things that were revealed to us. We could still be sitting around trying not to fall off the earth, or waiting for the sun to stand still! Wouldn't that be an amazing thing...the sun standing still? Duh...

 

Since you are an older person, I hope you keep your fuzzy, warm little answers and let the rest of the world proceed in a universe of questions.

[Lycorth]

You're a redneck aren't you? Just guessing from your intelligent posts.

 

He's probably just a troll.

[Lightbearer]

Wow, i'm surprised this thread is still going.

[pug]

Since no one knows the Truth™, there can be no claim made to it. Makes sense huh?

I agree.

 

It really doesn't matter if it's true or not as long as you're not lost in unknowing.

Agreed.

 

..comfort from the unknown.

Where are you going with this?

 

To me it's comfort from God - which can be defined by others as unknown or unproven. Where do you and others draw your/their comfort from? (excpet other Gods like Allah, Hindu Gods, etc of organised religions)