Foul the Christian

[Worm of Despite]

I would've hoped for more understanding, but I accept that it's a frustrating conundrum.

Hahaha, I don't care what you believe. Whatever gets you through the day man. I doubt it will make any noticeable difference to either you or I.

--A

"Get me through". As if living were hard. It best be easy, since we both plan on living forever! And yes; I'm not doing it for happiness; I've had enough satisfaction to last 8 quintillion lifetimes. I imagine only a new enjoyment from getting involved in something new.

I love dealing with absolutes, knowing I'll be doing A and B; it's almost like a cleansing ritual. My mindset is very much open to a spartan lifestyle or the cloistered existence of a monk.

Interesting. I don't have any well-formed questions, but... please tell more?

I'll quote one of my favorite stories, Heaven's Center, which I wrote around the same time. It's about a man who's happy despite living in an underground colony glassed over by a nuclear war:

‘You amaze me, man,’ said Bob. ‘You’ve got that cute little smile plastered on your face and you don’t have shit. No roof, no wind, no rain, no trees, no music, no books–’
‘Well,’ I said quickly, ‘it’s hard to explain.’
‘Explain it.’
‘I’ve just—I’ve always felt at home as long—as long as I know I’m somewhere where I’ll wake up and know where I’m at, what I’ve got to do, who I’m doing it with. Doesn’t matter if I’m in hell or–’
‘Hell!’ Bob laughed. ‘Welcome to it. Mile upon unrecorded mile of hell.’

I get my passion from nothingness and whatever gives me a sense of purpose. Luckily I found writing. Writing is literally nothing: lies on paper, totally ineffectual and also reflects my ultimate place in the universe. Peace through resignation. For me there's nothing more beautiful than accepting a long, suffering path of life and rising through it. At the same time it makes the moment of experimentation with women and beer all the more sweet.

The rest of my quotes you're replying to, remember, are from when I was 20 or 21. I'm 26 now, and I do like a little more variety. Back then I was just studying in college and little more (aside from video games and gorging on pizza).

[Linna Heartbooger]

...‘I’ve just—I’ve always felt at home as long—as long as I know I’m somewhere where I’ll wake up and know where I’m at, what I’ve got to do, who I’m doing it with. Doesn’t matter if I’m in hell or–’
‘Hell!’ Bob laughed. ‘Welcome to it. Mile upon unrecorded mile of hell.’

I get my passion from nothingness and whatever gives me a sense of purpose. Luckily I found writing. Writing is literally nothing: lies on paper, totally ineffectual and also reflects my ultimate place in the universe. Peace through resignation.

And yet our words have such power to influence others. And I would hold that other people must be real. =)

For me there's nothing more beautiful than accepting a long, suffering path of life and rising through it. At the same time it makes the moment of experimentation with women and beer all the more sweet.

I don't know much of "wine, women, and song" - for a variety of reasons. (well, except maybe the "song" part) Buuut I ought to warn you that the allure of the love of God is beyond all epicurean delights. As everyone here knows, it can make people do crazy things... And some days, rather than sentencing us to lives of stoicism, He just makes the pleasures of this world sweeter.

Perhaps you are standing on the edge of a Covenant-esque precipice, man. "Keep going forward. Find out what happens next."

The rest of my quotes you're replying to, remember, are from when I was 20 or 21.

Oooh. Linna failing to read timestamps ...struck again! Well. Umm, that explains -quite- a few things.

[Linna Heartbooger]

I would've hoped for more understanding, but I accept that it's a frustrating conundrum.

Hahaha, I don't care what you believe. Whatever gets you through the day man. I doubt it will make any noticeable difference to either you or I.

--A

Some days I just wanna smack ya for comments like this, man.


...But I was highly entertained by your one-liner. (not that I would expect you to resist such a perfect setup!)

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

So when I clicked on the discussion I didn't notice how old the original comments were, and I was like "OH NOES!" and then there was the bit that said "Oh, that Christian bug has flown the coop" and I was like "Hurrays!" But then we flash forward years and it's like "OH NOES!" again. How could a stranger's spiritual experiences be such a roller coaster for me?!

Anyway, I went to a UU church for awhile, and I was surprised at just how rich the environment was. I was part of the Atheist and Humanist group there, we met after church and then another time later in the week to talk about... you know, atheist stuff. Whatever, it was a bunch of 50 year old couples and me and my girlfriend (28 now, 24 at the time).

I had just assumed that in order to have a church sort of community you needed to have a religion of some authority to hold it together. Not so!
I don't attend now, but it seemed to slate some sort of thirst that I had for ritual and a certain feeling that I hadn't had since I was a born again youth leader. It was cool. If I want that again, I know where to go, and if I want a community of like-minded people to possibly form a social foundation for a potential possible maybe theoretical future child-like object of mine, the UU church is the first place I will go.

That being said, the very nature of Unitarian Universalism means that it will be different everywhere. Some are radical left wing places, some are almost entirely Christian. It's really hit or miss.

It's funny, most people move from atheism in a passionate youth to agnosticism as they age. I started Christian, moved to agnosticism, and then have been progressing deeper and deeper into atheism. It becomes more and more comfortable and rewarding. I don't worry about whether or not I can "be sure". I can't be sure of anything at all! That doesn't stop me in believing in the weather, my eventual death, that my parents told me their real names or that reading the Gap series is an undertaking of extreme masochism. Why should it stop me from saying I'm an atheist?

I support everyone's right to make their own choices, but I don't shy away from disagreement as long as everyone knows that I really think people are cool, even when we disagree. In Java:

class LordFoul extends coolGuy {
boolean isCool = true;
boolean isAtheist;
public LordFoul(boolean atheism){
super();
isAtheist = atheism;
// I will now return to lurking
}

[Avatar]

Always a pleasure to see you around man.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Good to see another of JC's rare appearances. Nice java.

[rusmeister]

So when I clicked on the discussion I didn't notice how old the original comments were, and I was like "OH NOES!" and then there was the bit that said "Oh, that Christian bug has flown the coop" and I was like "Hurrays!" But then we flash forward years and it's like "OH NOES!" again. How could a stranger's spiritual experiences be such a roller coaster for me?!

Anyway, I went to a UU church for awhile, and I was surprised at just how rich the environment was. I was part of the Atheist and Humanist group there, we met after church and then another time later in the week to talk about... you know, atheist stuff. Whatever, it was a bunch of 50 year old couples and me and my girlfriend (28 now, 24 at the time).

I had just assumed that in order to have a church sort of community you needed to have a religion of some authority to hold it together. Not so!
I don't attend now, but it seemed to slate some sort of thirst that I had for ritual and a certain feeling that I hadn't had since I was a born again youth leader. It was cool. If I want that again, I know where to go, and if I want a community of like-minded people to possibly form a social foundation for a potential possible maybe theoretical future child-like object of mine, the UU church is the first place I will go.

That being said, the very nature of Unitarian Universalism means that it will be different everywhere. Some are radical left wing places, some are almost entirely Christian. It's really hit or miss.

It's funny, most people move from atheism in a passionate youth to agnosticism as they age. I started Christian, moved to agnosticism, and then have been progressing deeper and deeper into atheism. It becomes more and more comfortable and rewarding. I don't worry about whether or not I can "be sure". I can't be sure of anything at all! That doesn't stop me in believing in the weather, my eventual death, that my parents told me their real names or that reading the Gap series is an undertaking of extreme masochism. Why should it stop me from saying I'm an atheist?

I support everyone's right to make their own choices, but I don't shy away from disagreement as long as everyone knows that I really think people are cool, even when we disagree. In Java:

class LordFoul extends coolGuy {
boolean isCool = true;
boolean isAtheist;
public LordFoul(boolean atheism){
super();
isAtheist = atheism;
// I will now return to lurking
}

I had just assumed that in order to have a church sort of community you needed to have a religion of some authority to hold it together. Not so!

Of course not - and I don't know anyone who claims that a church is necessary to have a community. There is no particularly reason why a church should require religious authority if its purpose is merely to establish a community, rather than truth. I guess the question is, what do you mean by “community”.

and if I want a community of like-minded people to possibly form a social foundation

This is what it becomes - a community of like-minded people. What such a thing cannot be is a universal Church, delivering the truth to all, like-minded or not. It is a club, a clique, but it is not for everybody. It is for those who are of that mind. The Church I belong to makes the opposite claim. Its aim is truth, and we are to acquire its mind, and learn where ours is Fallen, and is for all, regardless of what varying interests people may have, and it has the distinction of having continued to consistently teach the same things, and worship the same way, for 2,000 years - something that I find to be a factor that disqualifies any claims of teaching truth when that "truth" regularly changes (which is what is going on with most forms of Western Christianity today – a great many can be demonstrated to have teachings that contradict, or seriously change what people of the same profession held even one hundred years ago – if the denomination has even existed so long – and that is a small (5%) fraction of the existence of Christianity – so if there is consistent truth, it would have to have been taught consistently for 2,000 years, and not be subject to change – or else it was wrong, or lied, and so is NOT Truth.

I don't think there's any natural progression from atheism to agnosticism, or even that most do it. It seems to me that (in the US, anyway, in contrast with Russia) a majority start with some kind of faith imparted by parents, and gradually have any belief in any truth beaten out of them by the philosophical pluralism that dominates modern schooling and the media - two forces that almost no one can escape, aside from complete unplugging of one's self from the mass society of our day - which extends far beyond any local community. So one actually starts from agnosticism in their late teens/young adulthood, wherever they progress - or regress - from that point. Those that do come to truth do so in spite of the message pushed on them by their surrounding environment. But I'm fond of pointing out that agnostic is merely the Greek, the Latin for which is "ignorant". Of course, the agnostic doesn't generally praise ignorance, but he does often hold that absolute truth is unknowable - which itself is a mystical dogma of an absolute truth. (I was an agnostic for twenty years)

Just to try to make the point, if you can’t be sure of anything, how can you even be sure that you do not need an authoritative religion to hold a community together (something that, as stated, I agree with you on)? Obviously, we CAN be sure of some things, or else we wouldn’t even be able to open our mouths and make affirmative or negative statements. We would never be able to answer a single question. If we CAN be sure of certain things, we can begin to construct a system of dogmas that form what we call our worldview – something that requires certainty and dogma about some things in order even to be able to hold. In order to disagree, you must be certain of something.

Am I cool, or what?

Cats rule, and dogs drool!!!
www.imdb.com/title/tt0107131/quotes

[High Lord Tolkien]

I started Christian, moved to agnosticism, and then have been progressing deeper and deeper into atheism. It becomes more and more comfortable and rewarding.

Damn that thing called science!

[rusmeister]

I started Christian, moved to agnosticism, and then have been progressing deeper and deeper into atheism. It becomes more and more comfortable and rewarding.

Damn that thing called science!

The reference to science juxtaposed for me with a recent post on Christian Forums:

Strong atheism has a total dogmatic conviction about its own correctness. It refuses to allow ideas to be challenged by any other means than those it considers valid i.e. the scientific method. It dismisses anything that conflicts with this method as hallucination or fraud. It proudly proclaims its own worldview based on scientism as the only true way to know reality and considers this worldview as superior to all other interpretations of life. It sets itself up as the sole authority in all areas. It fosters intolerance toward faith, potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism it opposes. Strong atheists pretend to question everything and yet there is rarely a shred of evidence they ever had a single doubt about the rightness of their convictions. They have a high opinion of their own virtue, claiming moral superiority based on the belief that scientific control can create some kind of a heaven on earth utopia, while conveniently ignoring the fact that many scientific advancements have led to greater unhappiness, loss of control and alienation. I find it interesting how scientism has now become so much part of our modern mindset that it is no longer questioned. Even people of faith seem to feel the need to justify their belief with reference to science, suggesting that religious writings are literally true or scientifically verifiable. Coming up with outlandish, pseudo-scientific theories, like ‘Intelligent Design’ in a vain attempt to provide proof. This has the effect of undermining belief in God by forcing people to choose between a poorly supported proof and an infinitely more sensible science based atheism.

Obviously, if the natural sciences (what we happen to "know" now that hasn't been disproven yet) are the basis of our faith or lack thereof, then it is itself a faith.

[Cybrweez]

I like scientism. Leads to Eugenics. I'm a fan of weeding out the low lifes.

[Avatar]

Sure, but who gets to decide?

--A

[Orlion]

Obviously, if the natural sciences (what we happen to "know" now that hasn't been disproven yet) are the basis of our faith or lack thereof, then it is itself a faith.

I'll have to disagree. Faith requires no reason, only belief. The 'natural sciences' require both reason and verification. In faith, you say,"There is God A that does B, C, & D. All this is unverifiable (i.e. I have no proof), but I have faith (belief) ergo, it must be true. Make the same claim in natural science, and you better have verification... or "this is so because of X, Y, and/or Z which has been verified and reproduced by parties F, G, and H."

Technically, natural sciences also require verifiable and reproducible predictions.

Ultimately, trying to say "natural science" requires faith shows a lack of understanding of what "natural science" consists of in a vain effort to lift up the esteem of faith or drag down the "natural science". And such attempts are easily seen through by those with a cursory knowledge of both.

Now, another interesting point I'd like to raise, faith does not require 'reason', but I believe religion does. Religion is some sort of structure built around faith, as such, it requires some reason, even if that reason is misfounded or faulty.

[rusmeister]

Obviously, if the natural sciences (what we happen to "know" now that hasn't been disproven yet) are the basis of our faith or lack thereof, then it is itself a faith.

I'll have to disagree. Faith requires no reason, only belief. The 'natural sciences' require both reason and verification. In faith, you say,"There is God A that does B, C, & D. All this is unverifiable (i.e. I have no proof), but I have faith (belief) ergo, it must be true. Make the same claim in natural science, and you better have verification... or "this is so because of X, Y, and/or Z which has been verified and reproduced by parties F, G, and H."

Technically, natural sciences also require verifiable and reproducible predictions.

Ultimately, trying to say "natural science" requires faith shows a lack of understanding of what "natural science" consists of in a vain effort to lift up the esteem of faith or drag down the "natural science". And such attempts are easily seen through by those with a cursory knowledge of both.

Now, another interesting point I'd like to raise, faith does not require 'reason', but I believe religion does. Religion is some sort of structure built around faith, as such, it requires some reason, even if that reason is misfounded or faulty.

It seems there's a pretty basic misunderstanding here - I do not mean that faith in the natural sciences is required to accept what they tell us - although we DO have to have faith in things like our reason and the authority of our senses to even begin. Scientism - the thing being complained about - poses empirical proof as the only kind of reliable knowledge and the only things that therefore can be reliably believed. That's the problem of certain kinds of atheists who characterize authority outside of the natural sciences as unreliable, ridiculous, blind, unreasonable, etc.

Put another way:

And if great reasoners are often maniacal, it is equally
true that maniacs are commonly great reasoners. When I was
engaged in a controversy with the CLARION on the matter of free will,
that able writer Mr. R.B.Suthers said that free will was lunacy,
because it meant causeless actions, and the actions of a lunatic
would be causeless. I do not dwell here upon the disastrous
lapse in determinist logic. Obviously if any actions, even a lunatic's,
can be causeless, determinism is done for. If the chain of causation
can be broken for a madman, it can be broken for a man. But my
purpose is to point out something more practical. It was
natural, perhaps, that a modern Marxian Socialist should not
know anything about free will. But it was certainly remarkable
that a modern Marxian Socialist should not know anything about lunatics.
Mr. Suthers evidently did not know anything about lunatics.
The last thing that can be said of a lunatic is that his actions
are causeless. If any human acts may loosely be called causeless,
they are the minor acts of a healthy man; whistling as he walks;
slashing the grass with a stick; kicking his heels or rubbing
his hands. It is the happy man who does the useless things;
the sick man is not strong enough to be idle. It is exactly
such careless and causeless actions that the madman could never understand;
for the madman (like the determinist) generally sees too much
cause in everything. The madman would read a conspiratorial
significance into those empty activities. He would think that
the lopping of the grass was an attack on private property.
He would think that the kicking of the heels was a signal to
an accomplice. If the madman could for an instant become
careless, he would become sane. Every one who has had the misfortune
to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder,
knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail;
a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate
than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely
probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his
mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things
that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of
humour or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience.
He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections.
Indeed, the common phrase for insanity is in this respect a
misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason.
The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

The madman's explanation of a thing is always complete,
and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. Or, to speak
more strictly, the insane explanation, if not conclusive,
is at least unanswerable; this may be observed specially in the
two or three commonest kinds of madness. If a man says (for instance)
that men have a conspiracy against him, you cannot dispute it
except by saying that all the men deny that they are conspirators;
which is exactly what conspirators would do. His explanation
covers the facts as much as yours. Or if a man says that he is
the rightful King of England, it is no complete answer to say
that the existing authorities call him mad; for if he were
King of England that might be the wisest thing for the existing
authorities to do. Or if a man says that he is Jesus Christ,
it is no answer to tell him that the world denies his divinity;
for the world denied Christ's.

Nevertheless he is wrong. But if we attempt to trace his error
in exact terms, we shall not find it quite so easy as we had supposed.

www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ (ch 2, "The Maniac")

I highlighted the short way of putting it, and included the context so that y'all might grasp how that could be so.

A pity more people don't read that book.

[rusmeister]

Sure, but who gets to decide?

--A

I almost said that myself, Av, but I figured I'd spoil weez's sarcasm effect...

[Cybrweez]

Ha, nice rus.

Orlion, I've learned the definition of "verifiable", or "evidence", is hard to pin down.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Orlion, I've learned the definition of "verifiable", or "evidence", is hard to pin down.

Question: Why does water freeze?

Answer: All molecules, including water molecules (even those in a glassful of still water) are constantly moving. Heat makes them move faster, cooling slows them down. When water gets cool enough, molecular movement is slowed enough that the molecules stick to each other and form ice crystals.

How do we know?
We can measure the temperature and observe the results.

Question: Does the soul exist?

Answer: Sure it does.

How do we know?
You can't prove that it doesn't.




Sorry, I'll take science over fantasy when it comes to reason.

Anyone that fully understands science is open to new discoveries and the rewriting of old "facts".

But to dismiss or minimize the scientific method in favor of or equate it to "intelligent" discussion is, imho, asinine.

[rusmeister]

Orlion, I've learned the definition of "verifiable", or "evidence", is hard to pin down.

Question: Why does water freeze?

Answer: All molecules, including water molecules (even those in a glassful of still water) are constantly moving. Heat makes them move faster, cooling slows them down. When water gets cool enough, molecular movement is slowed enough that the molecules stick to each other and form ice crystals.

How do we know?
We can measure the temperature and observe the results.

Question: Does the soul exist?

Answer: Sure it does.

How do we know?
You can't prove that it doesn't.




Sorry, I'll take science over fantasy when it comes to reason.

Anyone that fully understands science is open to new discoveries and the rewriting of old "facts".

But to dismiss or minimize the scientific method in favor of or equate it to "intelligent" discussion is, imho, asinine.

Looks like scientism to me.

The scientific method is great for answering questions of a scientific nature, so I would certainly not dismiss it in its own realm. The error of scientism is when it tries to use it to answer questions that it is not capable of answering. What is the nature and purpose of man? What is the meaning of our lives? These are fundamentally not questions that the scientist specializes in - when he attempts to answer them, he does so on the same level as the rest of us mortals. Reason goes far beyond the natural sciences - and even reason has its limits. Believing that the only reliable truths are those which can be proven via scientific experimentation is, well, a belief, a faith - and a horribly limiting one at that, and it is one that we do not begin with as small children, where so much of what we learn is experiential, such as learning that our mother loves us. Sure, things like touching hot pots is "scientific", but who we like and why is not. And so on into adulthood, where philosophy asks why we live and what our purpose is is beyond 'science', which can only tell us how we live, but not why. Physics does not explain metaphysics.

I do agree on fantasy, though. The question of what exactly is fantasy and what is myth, or even True Myth, and what is truth couched in folk and fairy tales still remains, though, and is not answered by an unintellectual assertion that it is all 'fantasy'. As soon as I show that Zeus hiding from Hera reveals a great truth - that the relations of husbands and wives were not generally that of master and slave, at least in the culture that gave birth to those myths and passed them down - then it can be seen that even a fairy tale may contain truth. And if a mere fairy tale contains truth, what then do we say to the idea of True Myth? - that the repetition of themes in mythology around the world suggests, not mere fantasy (and extremely coincidental fantasy at that), but of an original True story of which all the others are reflections, just as forged banknotes are proof - not that the American Federal Reserve System or Bank of England do not exist, but that they do.

These discussions and ideas have all been had before - and by people wiser and more intelligent than we. If only more of us looked to them and learned from them, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel on our own, generation after generation! Most of us only read modern authors (if that), and so know nothing about the fact that seemingly new and fresh ideas are often stale - stale, old and discredited.

If intelligent discussion means only 'what one happen to agree with', then it's not terribly intelligent, is it? I happen to think I have had plenty of intelligent discussions with people I disagree with here on the Watch. I find some discussions with people of my own faith boring (although the topics in that faith are not so), but that is because some people are at levels above or below me in terms of intellect, knowledge or experience, and so either I am not understood or I myself don't understand - with the former, I try to apply patience and charity, knowing that I myself am in need of it with the latter - and that's with people with whom I DO happen to agree.

[Orlion]

If I understand you right, rus, you agree with me (in principle, we'll say) on the definition of faith and science (maybe even of religion). What you actually don't agree with is when someone makes a religion of science. For example: a proper use of science is using quantum mechanics to explain how an electron interacts with an atom. A scientism application would be to take quantum mechanics and claim that it proves free will exists. In that case, we may be in agreement, since I think the later case is absurd.

[rusmeister]

If I understand you right, rus, you agree with me (in principle, we'll say) on the definition of faith and science (maybe even of religion). What you actually don't agree with is when someone makes a religion of science. For example: a proper use of science is using quantum mechanics to explain how an electron interacts with an atom. A scientism application would be to take quantum mechanics and claim that it proves free will exists. In that case, we may be in agreement, since I think the later case is absurd.

Yeah, that's basically it. Scientism says that since God (who is, to believers, admittedly supernatural) cannot be proved by the natural sciences (which are obviously limited to studying the natural universe and powerless to extend their understandings beyond those limits), that He therefore doesn't exist, and they pull out the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" analogy as if there were serious and longstanding claims to such a deity comparable to the ones about, say, the Christian God.

[Worm of Despite]

This thread is about my Christianity. I got to the Christianity square on the board so the game's over.

Get out, all of you!!! OUT!!