How many here are atheists?

[dalebert]

Another brief break for levity since Vitruvian is stirring things up again. I've had a reply to something Caleb said over about a week ago or something that I have to get out, but I've been working a lot again and now it's late. I'll probably get to it tomorrow.

[Pat K]

Beer can sometimes help people. 

Pat, that was your queue to say "Hallelujah!" You missed it.

Yeah sometimes I'M queue less.

[Vitruvian]

You appear to be completely unaware of any form of Christianity that isn't "Bible-thumping fundamentalism".

I am perceptive enough to see that you are no fundamentalist, Caleb.  I have been trying to determine just what you are.  If "Scripture isn't the source of [your] beliefs," then what is?  If you had grown up a "blank slate," so to speak, and were not introduced to Christianity and the Bible, what earthly reason would you have to hold the beliefs that you do?  How would you ascertain whether God does, indeed, exist? or whether consciousness persists, postmortem?

What you have is a series of claims, none of which is testable or falsifiable.  Claims of this sort are devoid of meaning: you might as well be speaking gibberish.

[dalebert]

What you have is a series of claims, none of which is testable or falsifiable.  Claims of this sort are devoid of meaning: you might as well be speaking gibberish.

We've already been there, Vitruvian. It's something you have to be receptive to and he can't tell you what that means or how to get there. I know it sounds like "you have to have faith" but it's not according to Caleb. We've already been there too. He'll rattle off a bunch of philosophy authors and then speak with the assumption that you have read them. Apparently you have to read a lot of philosophy for this receptivity that he speaks of and perhaps get a visit from a dead relative. Maybe you can't be receptive to the dead relative until you've read all those books and the dead relative teaches you to be receptive to God.

You have to eventually realize it's pointless to continually chase after the questions that were repeatedly evaded. Either the points made will eventually sink in and have an effect on Caleb, or maybe you or myself, or not. So let's move on.

[Jim Johnson]

Beer can sometimes help people. 

Pat, that was your queue to say "Hallelujah!" You missed it.

Yeah sometimes I'M queue less.

Damn it Pat, watch your marks... this isn't just a freak show.
Makeup?.. Makeup!... Pat K's Avatar has a glare. 
Tom, is Caleb in focus?

OK, Caleb, take it from, "Beer can sometimes help people.    " 

[Vitruvian]

So let's move on.

Good idea, Dale.

[Pat K]

Beer can sometimes help people. 

Pat, that was your queue to say "Hallelujah!" You missed it.

Yeah sometimes I'M queue less.

Damn it Pat, watch your marks... this isn't just a freak show.
Makeup?.. Makeup!... Pat K's Avatar has a glare. 
Tom, is Caleb in focus?

OK, Caleb, take it from, "Beer can sometimes help people.    " 

Sorry MR. Demille, next time I will follow MR. Tracy's advice.

[Caleb]

We've already been there, Vitruvian. It's something you have to be receptive to and he can't tell you what that means or how to get there. I know it sounds like "you have to have faith" but it's not according to Caleb. We've already been there too. He'll rattle off a bunch of philosophy authors and then speak with the assumption that you have read them. Apparently you have to read a lot of philosophy for this receptivity that he speaks of and perhaps get a visit from a dead relative. Maybe you can't be receptive to the dead relative until you've read all those books and the dead relative teaches you to be receptive to God.

You have to eventually realize it's pointless to continually chase after the questions that were repeatedly evaded. Either the points made will eventually sink in and have an effect on Caleb, or maybe you or myself, or not. So let's move on.

I'm not sure where all this sarcastic negativity came from. I have tried to tell you my basic approach to life, which is "Experience is antecedent to knowledge". Then we try to make sense of our experiences. Where the hell did you get the idea that I think you have to study all sorts of philosophy to be open to experience? Experience is primary. Where have I said otherwise? It's a sort of bait and switch. I say, "well, this is my experience." Then you feign offense, as if I've offended you because you can't understand my experiences and I can't give you a real quick math equation to explain it all, so then when you demand, I finally capitulate. I say, "well, you know, those are good questions. I myself have tried to make sense of everything, and I'll share with you how I've tried to put it all together." But then when I do that, I'm accused of telling you that you have to understand a certain philosophy to have certain experiences, (instead of the context that I was placing it in, which is that philosophy helps me to make sense of my experience.) And we've gone over this before when you accused me of this earlier, but I guess you forgot? So then, when you encounter premises in my philosophy (all philosophies have them, by the way, it's not like I have this weird philosophy that has <gasp> premises, as if that's something strange or unique), you call my premises "gibberish" (as opposed, I suppose, to your "self-evident" premises?) neglecting to realize that by definition a premise is that which cannot be proved, but must be assumed. So then I say, "well, if you think you have something better, put it out there." And you do. To your credit. But in all honesty, you haven't been convincing to me, nor I suppose have I been convincing to you. At the outset, I thought we had agreed that, lacking any concrete epistemology, we would agree that a philosophy could be developed, and then checked by our experience. And yet, when I get to that point with what you expound, I am told that I am not permitted to check it with my experience, but I must define my experience by your exposition of your version of reality. And I'm not talking about extraordinary experiences. I am talking about the common experiences that all men share. Our perceptions of self-being. Of freedom. Of personal choice. This experience, which I am incapable of denying because I experience it, as all men do, I am told is not permitted to critique your version of reality. So I'm left wondering just how exactly we are supposed to determine "truth"? The previous epistemology you seem to be replacing midstream, and I guess we're left with no epistemological foundation. I can't imagine anything that deserves to be called "faith" more than that.

Then I'm told when I mention certain names of philosophers, "well, you can't expect me to have read all those people!" If you didn't understand what I was talking about, all you had to do was ask. "Who is Whitehead?" "What did Spinoza say?" etc. I tend to use people's names as shorthand to avoid spelling out things that are generally understood. You did the same thing, by the way. "Platonic forms". Based on Plato. The other alternative (the one I suggest) is to actually read these people. If you don't know what Spinoza said, if you don't know what Kant said, if you don't know what Nietzsche said, if you don't know what Sartre said, then the best thing to do is to read what they said from the horse's mouth. Because how can you know that I properly understood them? (There is a fairly large probability that I haven't understood Kant properly, as I will be the first to admit.) How can you know that there wasn't some key idea that I completely glossed over and didn't integrate from these great thinkers? There's no substitute for reading them yourself. And to be honest, a lot of times that's why I throw them out there. So that the person I'm talking to will be motivated to discover ideas for himself. I personally get no greater joy than "discovering" some creative thinker that I hadn't been exposed to before, and I am also usually grateful that someone turned me on to them by exposing me to just a little snippet of that person while leaving me "wanting more".

Probably the most unfair thing that you said in all this is that I have continually "evaded" your questions. I have practically written a book trying to answer all your questions, while trying to evade none of them. Just because you don't like an answer, doesn't mean it is an evasion. The only questions that I have "evaded" have been questions that I feel if I pushed on would force you or others who read it toward a nihilistic outlook. So yes, I evaded your morality discussion and I touched only very lightly on the purpose discussion, but it wasn't because I think I have to take my beliefs on faith, it's because I don't think that it's worth it to try to score points in a debate by trying to rob someone of their hope. There are Christians who debate this way, and I consider it cruel.

And as a side note, you continue to bemoan that you haven't had any spiritual experiences, but you steadfastly refuse to try anything that people have tried and found successful for having such experiences. Many people have tried many different things, to great effectiveness. Directed meditation? Have you tried it? Fasting. Have you tried it? I'm not talking about two days. I'm talking about a month. No food. (Come to think of it, when I had my first religious experience, I was, indeed, as I related earlier, definitely at a point of despair, but I also hadn't been able to keep anything down. I had gone from being 6 feet, 180 pounds to 6 feet, 125 pounds. Michael Fisher also reported a religous experience while on an extended fast.) Have you tried it? Attempting to love someone completely, not because they "deserve it", but merely as a gift of love. Have you tried it? Forgiving someone completely who has wronged you. Have you tried it? I'm not talking about some little petty thing, I'm talking about something that cut you to the core of your being. And I'm talking about complete forgiveness, not some "well, I guess I'll move on" type thing. You don't want to try anything other than just sitting around and waiting for God to tap you on your shoulder. Well, he taps my shoulder from time to time, but I've invited him to do so. Have you even tried simple, invitational prayer? Along the lines of "God, I'm probably the last person in the world you expect to hear from, I don't even believe in you. But if you are there, I want you to be part of my life, and I invite you to share in my life." Will it work? How do I know? But it can't hurt. I've prayed a prayer like that before. What are you doing to try to bridge yourself to God? If the answer is "nothing, just sitting around and waiting" then you don't even have a right to complain from my perspective.

[Russell Kanning]

see that was the advantage ... God made the tablets, so he skipped that pesky mistake part .... although that Moses guy dropped the last 5

[Russell Kanning]

So you do not accept the account of creation in Genesis as literally true?  In other words, you believe it is a fiction, a fabrication, a lie?  Why not discount every claim in the Bible?

I agree with your thinking.
But if you want to debate Caleb, you will have to go down a different path.

[Lloyd Danforth]

"The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen..."

CRASH!

"Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!"

[Russell Kanning]

"The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen..."

CRASH!

"Oy! Ten! Ten commandments for all to obey!"

that was lucky for us ... 10 is too much already

[Pat McCotter]

Beer can sometimes help people. 

Pat, that was your queue to say "Hallelujah!" You missed it.

Yeah sometimes I'M queue less.

[Nathan.Halcyon]

I don't know what "god" is, but unconditional love and respect are two attributes I certainly can't apply to it. They certainly can't be applied to the entity of biblical mythology. And you'll be hard pressed to find a more stark level of contrast than you find when comparing the old testament entity to that of the new. Not that such is of much concern to you.

Second, I don't see acknowledging a higher power as "debasing myself to God's authority."

Seems pretty obvious to me. Though I shouldn't have said this in conjunction with the term higher power, but rather a manufactured idealistic concept of "the divine", one of many. No more real, nor divine than those you'd find in a fantasy role playing book.

Quite the contrary, I find the ultimate expression of my humanity and freedom only in God.

Why expressed in a contrived notion of god, and not in living as a free human being?

Aside, you didn't pick a very good god to represent humanity and freedom. The judeo-christian god is a real son of a bitch, but I suppose he's acceptable when you blot out 99% of the bible from your mind, keep the concept of god and messiah, and build your own philosophy around it.

He doesn't have his hand on my back pushing my on my knees, he finds me on my knees and holds out his hand to lift me up on my feet.

This is self debasement. It's not even for "god", but merely one concept of a divine entity that you've picked out of thousands available to you.

Your notion of a divine entity isn't the thing aiding you, Caleb. No more so than do the myriad other gods and goddesses out there uplift those that believe in them. You do that yourself, with plenty of contribution by family, friends, and everyone and everything else that doesn't serve to bring you down. Not only do you debase yourself by attributing success and well being to a god, you also debase others who contribute to it, and for what? Give your gratitude to those people and things who put in the actual work.

Third, I do believe in the divinity of Christ. To be a little more specific, I believe in the divinity of Christ. Christ is Mashiach, the end towards which we strive, modeled by Jesus of Nazareth in fullness, but calling each of us to join with him and become this Christ.

Who was most likely just another guru philosopher, idealized in writing by those who followed him, and afforded a lot of exciting attributes in text that he didn't possess in real life. Assuming that he wasn't entirely imaginary.

I agree with you, Nathan, that there is a lot of work to do in the here and now. But I don't think people can get there until they are ready for it.

When in doubt, try something different. Religion hasn't succeeded. Government hasn't succeeded. I very much disagree with this notion that people "aren't ready" - you aren't offering them what they need.

We live in a world where science has dazzled us with myriads of technological innovations, and yet people's lives still feel, to them, very empty. Science and technology can't impart meaning and purpose to people's lives.

Nor can a false image of some divine whatever.

So we live in a very sophisticated world in many ways, and yet a world of despair, where people are literally dying on the inside. To quench this despair people try to distract themselves, or else acquire material possessions, and yet they still feel empty, alone, splintered from the rest of humanity, without meaning.

Of course it doesn't. The human drive isn't to consume, it is to grow, to travel, to seek, but our environment is not conducive to growth. Religions, governments, and other such institutions, even private property, are not conducive to growth. They stunt it, confine us. Consumption and entertainment are pacifiers from which one can derive no sustenance, but it is allowed, and encouraged. Many people in comfortable affluent positions do not want us to outgrow them.

No hero figure, no god, no Ron Paul, will ever change anything. Such things may provide hope, but hope hasn't gotten us anywhere. It's all more of the shame shit that we don't need. If there is a god, and it is intelligent, then it knows that very well, which why it stays the hell out of the way.

Not everyone, of course. But a substantial number of people. They buy self help books, but they acquire new outlooks, new theories, new religion, but they still aren't quenched: tomorrow they will buy the next new thing in the hopes of quenching their thirst for meaning. You want to make a difference in the here and now? Give people something to hope in.

Hope is the heroine proffered up to the masses by those who write self help books and who stand behind pulpits. I prefer to work towards destroying anything that would give reason for one to turn to it, and to help others reject hope and learn truly accept the natural laws ruling their lives, to reject all others, and to begin doing for themselves.

If we want to change something, to make a difference, the solution is step off the paths provided to us, unshackle our minds from constraints, take a sledge hammer to the stumbling blocks and hurdles placed before us, if necessary to those who place them there, and help as many people as we can to do the same in the short time we've got on this rock.

[dalebert]

Caleb, I'm sorry for the sarcastic negativity and it obviously really irritated you. I didn't expect you to like it but I didn't know it would upset you that much. It was an expression of sincere frustration, but some of that frustration was actually directed toward Vitruvian because I felt like the discussion had kind of moved past that point and he was asking questions that implied he hadn't or had forgotten some of your answers. As I said, this discussion with you feels like wrestling a giant amoeba sometimes. I tried really hard to explain why a very particular notion of God, an infinite and all-knowing conscious entity that pre-existed and created the universe, was the specific thing that I strongly do not believe in, the origin of my strong atheism. I then pointed out the things for which I do not consider myself to have the same degree of strong disbelief but just have no particular reason to believe based on my knowledge and experience like life after death (in an individual sense) or a force binding all life  and allowing for telepathy or something of that nature.

I cannot define God because of His nature; I make no apologies about that. I understand the desire to have a working definition. "Define your terms" is sort of a philosophical mantra. But the nature of the subject here, and human limitation, renders this an impossibility.

Understood, but you believe something about it. You express confidence in certain things about its nature. Vitruvian and I don't believe in it so from our point of view, we're trying to get at what is in your head. And when you claim inability to express your own thoughts with language, then it appears evasive. Sure, we can't know infinity. I get that, but we ought to be able to get to what it is that you believe about it. I still don't feel like you've addressed my reasoning, which I believe is very sound, about why I don't believe in an infinite conciousness that pre-existed the universe as having very human consciousness type traits like free will (in the sense of how we experience it anyway) and love for inconsequential little humans (in the grand scheme of things).

Many of the experiences you describe may be very valid (for you, since you experienced them and we didn't) in convincing you to believe, for instance, that the spirit of a dead relative survives or that thinking entities are connected to some higher intelligence. Even if I presume for the sake of discussion that they were very real evidence of those things, that still does not make the leap from ghosts and "the force" to a conscious entity that created the entire universe. Do you see what I mean? I see those things as having the possibility of existing as a part of our finite universe. They do not give me any reason to make the leap into that realm which defies both my common sense and my logic about the specific sort of God that I vehemently disbelieve in.