Kevin's Watch

Article

The language may be a bit coarse, and some of the photos may be a bit offensive to some, but I think this is one of the better articles/opinion pieces I've read.

I find there is a lot of truth in it.
The 10 things listed are entirely reasonable.

My one caveat: The point Wong makes about taking things to extremes can also be applied to tolerance, to the point where we say that "you can believe what you want, but what you believe doesn't matter. It does not and cannot reflect a reality that also affects me." In that extreme, exploration of faith using reason and common sense tends to be shunted aside and only unreasonable extremes of one side or the other are represented (aka 'strawmen').

Article supporting this point: www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch1.html

G.K. Chesterton, "Heretics" (1905)

Teaser from the first chapter:

It is foolish, generally speaking, for a philosopher to set fire to another philosopher in Smithfield Market because they do not agree in their theory of the universe. That was done very frequently in the last decadence of the Middle Ages, and it failed altogether in its object. But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period. General theories are everywhere contemned; the doctrine of the Rights of Man is dismissed with the doctrine of the Fall of Man. Atheism itself is too theological for us to-day. Revolution itself is too much of a system; liberty itself is too much of a restraint. We will have no generalizations. Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: "The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters--except everything.

I think the author avoids this to a fair extent - he does say that we should take the people we disagree with seriously.

new contender for a sig spot wrote:He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost.

precious!

I think the sentiment is good, but the point is ultimately a contradiction. While I do sincerely wish we could all get along, this is only possible by not saying what we really think.

The guy holding the sign, "God hates fags," might be a convenient target for both atheists and moderate Christians to make fun of, but the guy is just presenting the literal truth of the Bible. If God told the righteous to stone gays to death, was this supposed to be a sign that he loved them? If God sends sinners to hell, what difference does it make if we treat each other with civility in the brief moments before eternal damnation? On the Christian side, it's just patronizing and fake (according to what they really believe--i.e. I'm going to burn for eternity and I rightly deserve the same exact punishment as, say, Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler). On the atheist side, for me to pretend that Christians value life but have no problem worshiping a God who has damned us all to die simply because Adam ate the Fruit . . . I'm sorry, I just can't do that with a straight face. If you value life, there's no way that monumental injustice can't piss you off--much less inspire blind devotion. Every living thing doomed to die simply because of one man's sin? And that's a perfectly valid world view? And you think that world view is consistent with a love of life? Ok, whatever.

Like I said, the only kind of civility that can be achieved between people who hold such divergent views of reality is if they don't talk about their deepest held beliefs. And that is a shallow, inauthentic civility even worse than political correctness. While it might keep us from resorting to fist fights, it's ultimately pointless. I'd rather someone just tell me what they think, so I know where they stand, and respect me enough to allow me to do the same.

Here's the question, and I'm asking this sincerely....

I used to be an atheist. Now, when I say "atheist", I mean that I did not believe in any God, higher power, creator, or anything else. Because I didn't believe in God, I didn't care one whit what the Bible said, or what other people chose to believe.

It seems to my that you (and many other people who describe themselves as atheists) get awfully worked up over a God you don't believe exists. If you don't believe in Him, you can't be damned, right?

So it seems to me that you're either a busybody, which would run contrary to the vast majority of what you've posted on other issues, or that you're not really an atheist, and you are actually concerned about your fate vis-a-vis God.

So what's up? Why do you care at all what anyone of faith believes?

Judge not lest ye be judged-hey I didn't say it...that's in some dumb "God" inspired book! (joking...)

danlo wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged-hey I didn't say it...that's in some dumb "God" inspired book! (joking...)

Kinda my point....

Cail, that reminds me of the one thing I didn't agree w/in the otherwise very good article, which was that if a Muslim were to tell me I'm going to hell, I'd be offended. No, not at all, wouldn't bother me in the least.

danlo wrote:Judge not lest ye be judged-hey I didn't say it...that's in some dumb "God" inspired book! (joking...)

That crazy book also says you shall know them by their fruit...

It seems to my that you (and many other people who describe themselves as atheists) get awfully worked up over a God you don't believe exists. If you don't believe in Him, you can't be damned, right?

Sounds like the quote in the Bible but I can't remember how it goes... help me... something like:
"Only the fool denies God' or something

Anyway, the point is that if you deny you believe in God, then you accept a thing known as 'God' and thus must accept the way he is defined. something like that

Malik23 wrote:I think the sentiment is good, but the point is ultimately a contradiction. While I do sincerely wish we could all get along, this is only possible by not saying what we really think.

The guy holding the sign, "God hates fags," might be a convenient target for both atheists and moderate Christians to make fun of, but the guy is just presenting the literal truth of the Bible. If God told the righteous to stone gays to death, was this supposed to be a sign that he loved them? If God sends sinners to hell, what difference does it make if we treat each other with civility in the brief moments before eternal damnation? On the Christian side, it's just patronizing and fake (according to what they really believe--i.e. I'm going to burn for eternity and I rightly deserve the same exact punishment as, say, Jeffrey Dahmer or Hitler). On the atheist side, for me to pretend that Christians value life but have no problem worshiping a God who has damned us all to die simply because Adam ate the Fruit . . . I'm sorry, I just can't do that with a straight face. If you value life, there's no way that monumental injustice can't piss you off--much less inspire blind devotion. Every living thing doomed to die simply because of one man's sin? And that's a perfectly valid world view? And you think that world view is consistent with a love of life? Ok, whatever.

Like I said, the only kind of civility that can be achieved between people who hold such divergent views of reality is if they don't talk about their deepest held beliefs. And that is a shallow, inauthentic civility even worse than political correctness. While it might keep us from resorting to fist fights, it's ultimately pointless. I'd rather someone just tell me what they think, so I know where they stand, and respect me enough to allow me to do the same.

Like I said about strawmen...

Only the most primitive expressions of faith teach such simplistic ideas such as "God hates (such and such) people" - ignoring a central teaching common to all of 'hate the sin (ie, destructive behavior), love the sinner'.

Your understanding of 'sending sinners' to hell is also an unfair simplification, although it's more understandable because descriptions of some mainline theological positions (such as Baptists) do seem to teach this. By and large, Orthodox, Catholic and Anglicans, for example, hold much more to a 'this is something you do to yourself, rather than being something done to you.' Same thing goes for 'God damning us to die because Adam ate the fruit. There are more educated theological understandings out there - you simply are not familiar with them.

You bring up a good point with '...if God told the righteous..." - although if you really familiarize yourself with the Old Testament, you will find that most people were not actually righteous - they were only aiming for the goal. One response is from your own realization that what is here is not even a drop in the bucket next to eternity - the destruction of the body in this temporality would mean essentially nothing if a person was redeemed by it (not saying that they are, or specially defending the practices, but if our outrage is due to the limitations of our own understandings, we would be getting all worked up over nothing).

Your last point is also reasonable. However, if you read what Chesterton said, you'll see he was addressing the practical result of such silence (which is generally the rule in modern multicultural multi-faith nations). The silence is enforced in practical terms, so that no one occupying an official position in government, and often in big business, dare open their mouth about what they believe, and this is how freedom of religion is understood - the 'freedom' to 'shut up' - the only way to hold such a nation, replete with this kind of 'tolerance', together.

I fully agree with your final comments!

busybody? yea, b/c atheists go door to door to people's homes trying to convert everyone to atheism. yea, b/c atheists have missionaries in other countries trying to convert everyone to atheism.

Cail wrote:Here's the question, and I'm asking this sincerely....

I used to be an atheist. Now, when I say "atheist", I mean that I did not believe in any God, higher power, creator, or anything else. Because I didn't believe in God, I didn't care one whit what the Bible said, or what other people chose to believe.

It seems to my that you (and many other people who describe themselves as atheists) get awfully worked up over a God you don't believe exists. If you don't believe in Him, you can't be damned, right?

So it seems to me that you're either a busybody, which would run contrary to the vast majority of what you've posted on other issues, or that you're not really an atheist, and you are actually concerned about your fate vis-a-vis God.

So what's up? Why do you care at all what anyone of faith believes?

I have absolutely no problem with Agnosticism. But to actually believe in the non-existence of God is not only logically perilous, it's just as silly as believing in his existence. You can't actively deny God, after all you deny fervently those who assert his existence, and with similar lack of proof you seek to deny him.

Not only that, an Atheist denies a somewhat more reassuring vision of the universe for a much more bleak one. When I say that I fear oblivion more than damnation, I mean it. And I don't see how anyone can truly understand oblivion, non-existence, and feel anything but intense fear.

A belief structure that exists only to oppose another one only validates the former in my opinion.

And that was a great post rusmeister. I have actually had someone say to me once that "all opinions are equally valid". I told him immediately that I thought that was a load of crap, and he argued against me. (So I guess I won?)

What people think about the universe really *does* matter, it effects your entire value system and morality. (At least for those of us who have character, and not the many more who simply avoid getting in trouble) A nihilist, a true believer at least, is not someone I think I could be friends with. I am fine with a few systems of secular morality. (I apply secular humanism to my daily life). To someone who would honestly believe in nothing... Who would actively worship it? (As some Atheists seem too). That makes me afraid.

Thankfully true believers are pretty rare. Usually people only wear a belief structure like a mask or a nametag. People seek to define themselves as so and so a member of so and soism, rather than by what they actually believe. It comes down to what you know deep in your mind has to be true. Honestly, in my case I am somehow certain of the existence of a self-independent of the body. I can't prove it. I might just believe it because the alternative scares the living s*** out of me. But I am convicted of it.

And anyone who honestly believes in Salvation for the believers, and damnation for unbelievers... how could he live with himself if he didn't try to convert as many people as he could? As annoying as it is to have someone's beliefs imposed on you, at least some people are trying to save your soul. (Missionaries come to mind). Whether I agree or not, I can at least admire that a lot more than an Atheist just being a dick. (And so many are, I have at least 1 in my family)

when christians say, "you're going to hell", it doesn't bother me b/c i think there is a possibility of hell. i don't believe in heaven or hell; i don't believe in god or satan. so it isn't a matter of actually feeling threatened. it simply isn't a very nice thing to say to someone. i don't say anything mean to christians over their views. actually, i go out of my way to be as respectful as i can be when it comes to their beliefs. they, however, do not give me the same respect.

The Dreaming wrote:I have absolutely no problem with Agnosticism. But to actually believe in the non-existence of God is not only logically perilous, it's just as silly as believing in his existence. You can't actively deny God, after all you deny fervently those who assert his existence, and with similar lack of proof you seek to deny him.

To accept that not only is there no evidence of the existence of a god, but also nothing present in the universe to indicate the possibility of it, is perfectly logical. I do not actively deny god--I simply do not attribute to the concept any probability of truth.

Not only that, an Atheist denies a somewhat more reassuring vision of the universe for a much more bleak one. When I say that I fear oblivion more than damnation, I mean it. And I don't see how anyone can truly understand oblivion, non-existence, and feel anything but intense fear.

Now that is entirely beside the point. Do you ascribe to a particular belief because you think it is true, or because it's more comforting? Truth does not require itself to be pleasant.
Of course it is impossible to truly grasp the concept of oblivion--and it is because nothingness is not something that can be conceived that it is perfectly possible to live comfortably while accepting that nothing is what we will have after death. The very same way that we have always lived with knowledge of death, whatever we believe comes after.

A belief structure that exists only to oppose another one only validates the former in my opinion.

To suggest as much--that atheism exists only to oppose religion--is to make exactly the mistake pointed out in part of this article, or at least implies a similar attitude:

Christians do this thing that drives atheists nuts, where they talk like God is patently obvious to all mankind, and that atheism is therefore just petty, intentional rebellion against Christians. In other words, that atheists don't honestly believe what they say, and just say it because they're jerks.

And it is frankly insulting to see such an assertion made.

Very interesting article Cail.

I've only skimmed the replies, but to touch on what you asked about why atheists care...well...

I used to be one of those rabid atheists. The kind who got offended by somebody else professing belief in god. And I think I figured out why too...it's not that I thought they could be right. It was more along the same lines that I imagine christians care if somebody doesn't believe.

For me, it was like, "you're a fairly intellligent person who I quite like...how can you think there is a god?" Like christians who really don't want to see anybody go to hell, and so try to save them, I didn't want to see anybody else live their lives under the yoke of christianity. I thought they could do better. And I genuinely believed that I was hgelping them escape cruel oppression.

Since then, I guess I realised that if you don't feel oppressed, you're not. So I relaxed a whole lot more. That, and exposure to christians who weren't stereotypical. Largely here, I might add.

--A

So Av, you used to be the type that went door to door trying to convert Christians?

KiGirl wrote:busybody? yea, b/c atheists go door to door to people's homes trying to convert everyone to atheism. yea, b/c atheists have missionaries in other countries trying to convert everyone to atheism.

Totally not the point. I've made the assertion over and over that I don't care whether or not anyone else believes what I believe (and I agree that that trait makes me a lousy Christian). I don't give a rat's ass whether you or anyone else believes in God, and I don't/won't belittle your beliefs.

However, there are quite a few people who call themselves atheists both in the RW and here that go out of their way to call out people of faith, call the Bible a "fairy tale", and other such insulting nonsense. Spending time and energy insulting a belief system that you don't agree with makes you a busybody (or an asshole, but I'm not making that value judgment).

By the same token, people of faith who spend their time making placards that say, "God hates fags", or that behead people who don't agree with them are assholes (or busybodies) too.

Cail wrote: It seems to my that you (and many other people who describe themselves as atheists) get awfully worked up over a God you don't believe exists. . . . Why do you care at all what anyone of faith believes?

Well, I get worked up because I think that religious world-views harm humanity. In many, many ways. But the most concise way I can describe it for this audience is that I believe religion is like the Clave. It teaches you that this world is one big punishment for something that happened before you were born. It turns humans into creatures who are automatically guilty from the get-go. I don't believe the human condition is one of automatic, inherited guilt. I think the belief that you require salvation--from the mere "crime" of existing--is the worst possible thing we can hang on the heads of our children. Turning the earth into one big punishment for Adam's sin infects reality with one big Sunbane. Was Covenant wrong to get worked up about the Clave, even though he didn't believe the a-Jeroth myth?

Cyberweez wrote: Like I said about strawmen...

Only the most primitive expressions of faith teach such simplistic ideas such as "God hates (such and such) people" - ignoring a central teaching common to all of 'hate the sin (ie, destructive behavior), love the sinner'.

Well, if only God would send the sin to hell, instead of the sinner, then we might have some common ground. If sending someone to hell is an act of love, that's the strangest love I've ever heard of.

Cyberweez wrote: By and large, Orthodox, Catholic and Anglicans, for example, hold much more to a 'this is something you do to yourself, rather than being something done to you.'

I didn't create hell. I didn't eat the Fruit. There's no way I can "trip and fall" into the Lake of Fire; it takes the direct intervention from God. He puts you there. How can this be something I do to myself? God could have created a world without hell. He could have given everyone the freedom to believe whatever they want without punishing them for believing something he doesn't like. You can't put the conditions of this existence on my shoulders. I didn't create this world, or its rules. Your excuse for God's judgment is a cop-out, relieving the creator of reality from the responsibility of reality's rules and its outcomes.

It would be like saying it's not my fault if I dig a pit, fill it full of lava, and physically push people into it if they don't believe what I want them to believe . . . and then tell them it's their fault if they fall into it. This kind of patronizing, extreme judgmentalism for holding a contrary belief is EXACTLY why I get so worked up when Christians say what they really think. What you're saying is that I deserve eternal torment--that I'm that bad. How can you expect someone to not get worked up about such a patronizing, extreme judgment?

Cyberweez wrote:Same thing goes for 'God damning us to die because Adam ate the fruit. There are more educated theological understandings out there - you simply are not familiar with them.

Oh I'm aware of them. I just think they either boil down to the same thing, or else they are a watered-down version of the literal words of the Bible. If you're going to conveniently interpret some of the Bible as figurative, then why not all of it? Even this God character? It's either arbitrarily dismissed as "figurative," in order to appear more "modern" and "educated," or it's superstitious literalism. Do you or do you not believe that I deserve to go to hell because I inherited Adam's original sin? Do you think I deserve eternal torment? You must, if you think it's my fault that I wind up in hell.

The Dreaming wrote: But to actually believe in the non-existence of God is not only logically perilous, it's just as silly as believing in his existence. You can't actively deny God, after all you deny fervently those who assert his existence, and with similar lack of proof you seek to deny him.

So Richard Dawkins has committed a logical fallacy? Are you agnostic about fairies? Do you withhold judgment about their existence just because you can't prove their nonexistence? Are we logically bound to admit that unicorns and lepricons might exist, and therefore we must reserve judgment on them, too?

Personally, I'm an agnostic. But the atheist view is rational and logical. Check out The God Delusion.

The Dreaming wrote:Not only that, an Atheist denies a somewhat more reassuring vision of the universe for a much more bleak one. When I say that I fear oblivion more than damnation, I mean it. And I don't see how anyone can truly understand oblivion, non-existence, and feel anything but intense fear.

Life without superstition is indeed a brave choice. That is what the existential crisis is all about (and much of the Chronicles, if you ask me): facing a world where your life is limited, and your existence depends entirely upon your choices. That's a heavy burden. Only the strongest among us can bear it. However, I don't get worked up thinking about my non-existence before I was born. Why should I worry about it after I'm gone? I'm not essential to this universe. Otherwise, I would have always existed. Viewed in this light, the brief, fleeting nature of my life is even more precious than if I believed I had some cosmic get-out-of-jail card.

The Dreaming wrote:A belief structure that exists only to oppose another one only validates the former in my opinion.

This is simply more patronizing. Our beliefs don't exist merely to oppose yours. In fact, I don't see any conflict. For me, that's like saying reality exists to oppose fantasy. I believe in this world, this life, this body. Religion depends on a belief in another world (which no one has experienced), another life (which no one here has ever lived), and a mystical "spirit" (for which no one can find evidence). You don't have to create a belief system which runs counter to this. Reality itself runs counter to this. You might as well say my belief that my world is real was created to be opposed to the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant.

The Dreaming wrote: What people think about the universe really *does* matter, it effects your entire value system and morality.

Absolutely. That's another reason why I get so worked up about this. Religion--specifically Christianity--devalues this life, this world, and this body. It makes reality a punishment, something to get through until we get to What Really Matters (heaven) . . . which conveniently lies on the other side of the grave. Any value system which places more value on you after you die is not a belief-system which is true to the earth. It places its highest value beyond this world, and by doing that it devalues this life and this earth. Christianity is an inauthentic anti-morality. Just like the Clave's beliefs.

Honestly, I don't see how Christians can read the Chronicles and get anything out of it. A story built on the premise that you make your own meaning, that we redeem ourselves, and that life is about coming to terms with death (rather than finding an escape clause), and rejecting inauthentic Codes of Ethics (Oath of Peace) . . . it is an indictment of Christianity from an author who has vehemently rejected Christianity. Either Christians aren't getting it, or they're in denial about the meaning of these books. Honestly, what do you guys see in them?

Murrin wrote: Do you ascribe to a particular belief because you think it is true, or because it's more comforting? Truth does not require itself to be pleasant.

Good point!

Malik, I believe that you have a very jaundiced and misinformed opinion/view of Christianity. In no way, shape, or form is this life a punishment for anything.

Put simply, by your logic, nothing we do matters anyway because we came from void and we return to void after 80 years or so. That's pretty pointless and hopeless.