Killing In The Name Of Atheism

[Antlerman]

Let's talk about this practically for a moment. I concede that you make some very interesting points with your state/god analogy. But the state very much has power over my life that is measurable. God, at one point in my life could be somewhat comparable, but I've spent 20 years now without him and I'm doing just fine. If I ignore the state, it still finds me and makes me pay taxes, renew my passport and keep up with visa regulations.

If religion was the State as it once was, you wouldn't be freed from it as you are now. As in my earlier explanation, these 'ties' moved from bloodlines to ethnic groups, to religious groups, to nation-states. Each of these expanded the reach of who was included, and negated the earlier criteria for membership. Right now the nation-state has more power than religion, which had more power than ethnic groups, which had more power than bloodlines, etc. But its all the same thing. You just have the freedom to 'not believe' religiously because it's not how your defined as a member any longer.

[Antlerman]

My head hurts, too. I guess I had the pebble in my own hand all along.

Actually, that's exactly right. Keep trying to see it enough and you'll see it.

[JoeCoastie]

 

So then again, the institutions of a religion are real.

 

Yes the institutions of a religion are real. A cross, church, worshiper, Bible, are all real just like a state, however the beliefs are myth. Like any religion a country has its own cultures and myths. George Washington was real, but the one who cut down his fathers cherry tree is a mythological Washington.

[Vigile]

Let's talk about this practically for a moment. I concede that you make some very interesting points with your state/god analogy. But the state very much has power over my life that is measurable. God, at one point in my life could be somewhat comparable, but I've spent 20 years now without him and I'm doing just fine. If I ignore the state, it still finds me and makes me pay taxes, renew my passport and keep up with visa regulations.

If religion was the State as it once was, you wouldn't be freed from it as you are now. As in my earlier explanation, these 'ties' moved from bloodlines to ethnic groups, to religious groups, to nation-states. Each of these expanded the reach of who was included, and negated the earlier criteria for membership. Right now the nation-state has more power than religion, which had more power than ethnic groups, which had more power than bloodlines, etc. But its all the same thing. You just have the freedom to 'not believe' religiously because it's not how your defined as a member any longer.

 

With the divine right of kings now part of history, isn't god an obsolete concept for all practical purposes then?

 

Still trying to wrap my head around this.

[Antlerman]

Let's talk about this practically for a moment. I concede that you make some very interesting points with your state/god analogy. But the state very much has power over my life that is measurable. God, at one point in my life could be somewhat comparable, but I've spent 20 years now without him and I'm doing just fine. If I ignore the state, it still finds me and makes me pay taxes, renew my passport and keep up with visa regulations.

If religion was the State as it once was, you wouldn't be freed from it as you are now. As in my earlier explanation, these 'ties' moved from bloodlines to ethnic groups, to religious groups, to nation-states. Each of these expanded the reach of who was included, and negated the earlier criteria for membership. Right now the nation-state has more power than religion, which had more power than ethnic groups, which had more power than bloodlines, etc. But its all the same thing. You just have the freedom to 'not believe' religiously because it's not how your defined as a member any longer.

 

With the divine right of kings now part of history, isn't god an obsolete concept for all practical purposes then?

 

Still trying to wrap my head around this.

You provoke my thoughts on this. I'd say yes in the context we are speaking. In this regard "God is dead", as Nietzsche said, except in this role as binding a people together under a common belief and symbol, "God", instead of the United States flag. But where I could go into great detail laying this out I'll keep it simple. God as a concept I would say is obsolete, without some tangible reality accompanying it. This is the death of metaphysics Kant saw. I would not say God is dead, without then adding "Long live God!". What that means is that the God of mythological system is no longer functional in a modern world. That God needs to die. But rather than saying long live Science and Reason, the role of God in society as the authority of law in its morals, it's metaphysics, and its epistemology needs to move beyond that old role to one that is the spiritual center of the human. God symbolizes that center (or any other symbol more suited to ones cultural references).

 

The Age of Reason, as well as bringing great and needed advances in how we approached governing ourselves, how we approached science, and how we approached our individuality also threw out our spiritual center with the bathwater of myth as a myth itself. It also said spirituality is dead right along with the mythic God. That is clearly not the case, try as desperately as some would wish to stamp out that out in an effort to stamp out God, it is something not defined by myth, but merely, only, expressed in a mythic context along with everything else in the world in that period of history. "God is dead, long live God", means that God as the symbol of that itself needs to be liberated from myth, just the same as science was. That God no longer works and is indeed dead.

[Vigile]

and how we approached our individuality also threw out our spiritual center with the bathwater of myth as a myth itself.

 

 

Unless I misunderstood you, you are equating our sense of morality with spiritual center here. I don't understand why spirituality is needed in order to achieve morality. More often than not, belief systems warp morality. Most atheists have a higher sense of moral purpose than most xians I know. Many xians I know that are moral people, are so despite their belief system.

[owen652]

 

...and i don't mind, in fact i think my new favourite phrase is 'God is dead, long live God.'

[Guest end3]

Ok, moving on, what I see you proposing K is a level or network above the physical, but not supernatural God. So with this amazingly accurate assessment, what do you invision of this network. And I can see that the network able to communicate with the level below, but what is the level above, and what does our "success" have to do with that level, or if there is one.

[Antlerman]

and how we approached our individuality also threw out our spiritual center with the bathwater of myth as a myth itself.

 

 

Unless I misunderstood you, you are equating our sense of morality with spiritual center here. I don't understand why spirituality is needed in order to achieve morality. More often than not, belief systems warp morality. Most atheists have a higher sense of moral purpose than most xians I know. Many xians I know that are moral people, are so despite their belief system.

Im out of town on my cell so this is brief. No i dont mean morality. All aspects of our lives are centered in the spiritual. Call in the wind in the sail. Not the boat itself.

[Guest end3]

Why does this matter? If the earth and it's inhabitants "bloom" into life or death via this evolving spiritual evolution, it's still going to bloom and then die.....perhaps by a myriad of means.

 

In other words, deliver the goods sir, because all I am seeing is that we have today, moment by moment.

 

Anyone else care to weigh in?

 

Edit: and am pretty sure these questions are dealt with in the Bible.

[Ouroboros]

Ok, moving on, what I see you proposing K is a level or network above the physical, but not supernatural God. So with this amazingly accurate assessment, what do you invision of this network. And I can see that the network able to communicate with the level below, but what is the level above, and what does our "success" have to do with that level, or if there is one.

The level above and the level below don't need to communicate with each other. They are each other. Different aspects of the same thing.

 

Like brain and soul. The soul emerges from the brain. The soul "communicates" with the brain, and vice versa, by just being a soul through the brain.

 

That's my take on physical v meta-physical questions.

[Ouroboros]

Why does this matter? If the earth and it's inhabitants "bloom" into life or death via this evolving spiritual evolution, it's still going to bloom and then die.....perhaps by a myriad of means.

The bloom of humanity, or maybe trans-humanity/singularity, i.e. more than individuals. Like prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. Or single cell to multi-cell organisms. Think bigger...

[Guest end3]

And, if there is NOTHING greater to connect with, i.e. the function of a human based spirituality, then heck, it's meaningless.....as there is nothing to connect with. So, the conclusion would be that I am already at ONE with the universe because I am physical.

 

In other words, morality would ultimately serve only selfishness.

[Ouroboros]

And, if there is NOTHING greater to connect with, i.e. the function of a human based spirituality, then heck, it's meaningless.....as there is nothing to connect with. So, the conclusion would be that I am already at ONE with the universe because I am physical.

That's what the delusion of religion (traditional religion with the belief/faith in supernatural beings and world) is about, to create the false correlation between "higher connection" and "meaning." You can find meaning and even find a higher connection with reality and life without a supernatural world beyond the clouds. Religion only oversimplify the solutions for the emotional needs. You grow out of religion as a crutch when you grow up.

 

In other words, morality would ultimately serve only selfishness.

Is wanting to feel cared for and loved by family a selfish thing? Is wanting to live in peace with other people a selfish thing?

[Guest end3]

Why does this matter? If the earth and it's inhabitants "bloom" into life or death via this evolving spiritual evolution, it's still going to bloom and then die.....perhaps by a myriad of means.

The bloom of humanity, or maybe trans-humanity/singularity, i.e. more than individuals. Like prokaryotes evolved into eukaryotes. Or single cell to multi-cell organisms. Think bigger...

 

Seems reasonable to me H......but it has no meaning IMO. Who said it had to have meaning, right?

[Ouroboros]

Seems reasonable to me H......but it has no meaning IMO. Who said it had to have meaning, right?

What does the word "meaning" means? Is it a word that existed in the universe and humans discovered it, or is it a word that we (humans) invented? For things to have "meaning" is something that we evolved to think about in respect to the world. The early thinking humans (with stone tools) started to think that everything around them had to have meaning (or purpose). But does it? Why can't existence and good existence be a meaning (or purpose) in itself?

 

If I understand it correctly, the root of the words "mean" and "mind" are the same. Meaning is a purpose you make. It grows from your mind.

 

What's missing for you in a naturalistic view is that there's no someone-else sitting behind the curtain and inventing "meaning" and "purpose" for you. In a naturalistic world, you are the narrator, not some anonymous and silent wizard.

[Antlerman]

In other words, deliver the goods sir, because all I am seeing is that we have today, moment by moment.

You want me to do it for you? You have to see it yourself, if you care to look and do the work. For me the goods are already there and realized.

[Guest end3]

In other words, deliver the goods sir, because all I am seeing is that we have today, moment by moment.

You want me to do it for you? You have to see it yourself, if you care to look and do the work. For me the goods are already there and realized.

 

I appreciate that comment, but was leaning more towards a concept discussion. If the spiritual level hovering above humanity is man based, then IMO, that doesn't sit right with me on a spiritual level....if that makes sense. In other words, there is no comfort derived from a man-derived blooming or next level of humanity.....whatever that is.

 

I can see Hans' comment about soul and mind being one really, but in reality, I don't view my mind and soul as one.

 

No biggie, regardless of the endpoint, the goal of the yield. i.e. love towards others, is definitely a good thing.

 

Was just looking for your speculations by my normal agressive, defensive, masterful methods....lol.

[bornagainathiest]

Why does this matter? If the earth and it's inhabitants "bloom" into life or death via this evolving spiritual evolution, it's still going to bloom and then die.....perhaps by a myriad of means.

 

In other words, deliver the goods sir, because all I am seeing is that we have today, moment by moment.

 

Anyone else care to weigh in?

 

Edit: and am pretty sure these questions are dealt with in the Bible.

 

Yes indeed, End!

 

The BIG questions about life and death are dealt with in the Bible.

 

Specifically, in the first few chapters of Genesis. However, Christians themselves are sharply divided on how to take the Genesis narrative - literally or metaphorically.

 

Christians like OrdinaryClay are Theistic Evolutionists.

To square up the findings of science with the Bible, they take Genesis metaphorically. For them Death became a reality billions of years ago, when the first living organism died. The TE's don't see death as a product of man's disobedience, but they do accept that God has given man a way to overcome death's power and to live again - eternally. Thus, the saved "bloom" into eternal life.

 

Young Earth Creationists cannot accept these billion year timescales and feel obliged to read the Bible literally.

For them, Death did not exist until Adam and Eve sinned, perhaps some 6,000 years ago. They see death as some kind of enemy, who came into being thru one man's sin and who will be consigned to Hell on the Last Day. Yet, both the YEC's and the TE's agree that the saved will "bloom" into eternal life. It's how Death came about that they disagree on.

 

You see End, Genesis is the great divide - the line in the sand that separates those Christians who cannot accept what science says about the nature of the universe from those who can.

 

So, which side of the line do you stand on, may I ask?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

As was already pointed out, technology overcomes all that. No doubt at all about that anymore.

 

Going back to this.....certainly improved communication can facilitate better understanding, respect, etc, but it can equally have a detrimental effect. So I don't see that because tech increases, we necessarily see a positive global centric view.

 

Please explain.

[blackpudd1n]

I can't look at this topic heading without hearing that Rage Against The Machine song.

 

That is all, back on topic.

[bornagainathiest]

Why does this matter? If the earth and it's inhabitants "bloom" into life or death via this evolving spiritual evolution, it's still going to bloom and then die.....perhaps by a myriad of means.

 

In other words, deliver the goods sir, because all I am seeing is that we have today, moment by moment.

 

Anyone else care to weigh in?

 

Edit: and am pretty sure these questions are dealt with in the Bible.

 

Yes indeed, End!

 

The BIG questions about life and death are dealt with in the Bible.

 

Specifically, in the first few chapters of Genesis. However, Christians themselves are sharply divided on how to take the Genesis narrative - literally or metaphorically.

 

Christians like OrdinaryClay are Theistic Evolutionists.

To square up the findings of science with the Bible, they take Genesis metaphorically. For them Death became a reality billions of years ago, when the first living organism died. The TE's don't see death as a product of man's disobedience, but they do accept that God has given man a way to overcome death's power and to live again - eternally. Thus, the saved "bloom" into eternal life.

 

Young Earth Creationists cannot accept these billion year timescales and feel obliged to read the Bible literally.

For them, Death did not exist until Adam and Eve sinned, perhaps some 6,000 years ago. They see death as some kind of enemy, who came into being thru one man's sin and who will be consigned to Hell on the Last Day. Yet, both the YEC's and the TE's agree that the saved will "bloom" into eternal life. It's how Death came about that they disagree on.

 

You see End, Genesis is the great divide - the line in the sand that separates those Christians who cannot accept what science says about the nature of the universe from those who can.

 

So, which side of the line do you stand on, may I ask?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Oh, I thought you'd cut and run End.

 

Seeing as you're back here, how about it?

 

So which side of the line do you stand on then?

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

A mixture of both Baa...lol. TE + death will be abolished at some point.

[Akheia]

You know, Christians are saying this "BUT BUT BUT ATHEISTS KILL PEOPLE TOO" horseshit a lot lately, but besides the obvious truth that these "atheists" weren't killing in the name of atheism but instead in the name of promoting a government or social idea, there's another, far more interesting truth at work that I think they're hoping nobody will notice: Talking erroneously about atheists killing people does not in any way prove Christianity's claims or provide evidence for the Christian deity.

 

Oh, and End: when you try to assign any group a corner on any concept (like "meaning" or "morality") you automatically set yourself up for failure. Does it scare the willies out of you to imagine that non-Christians might have meaningful lives--perhaps even more meaningful than yours? If they do, what does that mean for your batshit crazy deity and your insane religion? Consider for a second, just for a second. Give yourself permission to let go and imagine it: What if meaning is found in other places besides your narrow-minded, barbaric religion?

[bornagainathiest]

A mixture of both Baa...lol. TE + death will be abolished at some point.

 

Both, huh?

A mixture of Literal Young Earth Creationism and Theistic Evolution?

 

Well, that explains a lot.

That you think you can mix these two, mutually-exclusive types of Christianity explains why your posts and your questions are so confused, End.

 

YEC Creationism (with a 6,000 year old Earth) cannot be mixed with Theistic Evolution (with a 4.5 billion year old Earth).

So you think the world is BOTH 6,000 and 4.5 billion years old?

 

YEC Creationism (with Death coming thru Adam) cannot be mixed with Theistic Evolution (with Death happening for billions of years).

So you think that no animals died until Adam sinned, yet animals have also been dying for billions of years?

 

YEC Creationism (with a 6-day old universe) cannot be mixed with Theistic Evolution (with a 13.72 billion year old universe).

So you think the universe was made in 6 days AND evolved over the last 13.72 billion years?

 

Sorry End, but YEC-ism and TE-ism are oil and water... they cannot and don't mix.

And if you somehow think you can just take bits of one and bits of the other, then you're just cherry-picking stuff according to what suits you.

It's either one or the other pal.

.

.

.

.

.

Which leaves me wondering. Which one of these applies to you?

 

1.

You mistakenly think that you can be BOTH a YEC and TE, meaning that you understand neither.

 

2.

You are too stupid to understand either, leading you to think that you can shake them together like some kind of cocktail.

 

3.

You understand them both and much, much more. In fact you are extremely intelligent and well-read. But you're just acting out the part of a klutz in this forum for reasons known only to yourself. (Two chances of that, I'd say.)

 

4.

You're just jerking us all around and you're typing out deliberately misleading answers to our questions.

 

5.

You actually don't care a flying **** and just type out whatever comes into your head, no matter how contradictory, nonsensical or inane it is.

 

BAA.