navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » calling all atheists?
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic calling all atheists? Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738


0 posted 2004-03-14 07:09 AM


I'm not even sure how to form this question, but it's been bugging me, so I thought I'd give it a shot. I'm very curious as to everybody's personal beliefs here, but I'm not sure if personal questions are proper.

I once thought philosophy was about finding answers, but I can see now where it's more a discipline of the mind--so if this should be deemed more suitable in another forum, then yes, it's fine with me. And I'm certainly not intending to single any one out--and nope--that's not exactly true. Although it's presumptuous of me to assume to know anyone's beliefs,& although I'm actually hoping to hear from all of you, I confess I hope to hear most specificaly from Brad, because if I'm not mistaken Brad? you are an atheist? (If I'm mistaken, I still feel confident you will clear that up.) And no, not picking on you--if you can stand a bit of shmooze, I like you Brad.

But what I'm wondering here, is how an atheist copes.

I have read the arguments that salvation is a comfortable delusion, convenient to the mind, (even a virus) and I have argued for the favor of delusions, wondering what is the harm of that?

My general philosophy regarding personal beliefs/religions has been this:

"If it gives a person comfort, and helps them to be a better person? Then why not?"

The end justifies the means.

But I have a bit of a split mind, and I assume most do; I have a bit of the scientist in me that wants things proven. So I find myself sympathetic toward the agnostic/atheist.

Consider it a crisis of faith if need be, but what I really want to know is this--

Does denying the existance of God mean the denial of the existance of the soul?

If it does?

Does the acknowledgment of that premise preclude the possibility of life after death?

I have trouble with that.

So I'm sitting here wondering--I concede that logic might dictate endings, and yet I can't conceive of them.

I'm wondering too, on a personal level, that if the atheist believes (what? tell me) that "this" is all there is, what is there to give a person hope--or even define moral distinctions?

How do you personally come to terms with the loss of loved ones if this is all that is?

How do you deal with the fact that there is no just reward for just living "right"? "Why bother?" comes to mind...

sigh. I hope you all know what I'm asking better than I do.

?



© Copyright 2004 serenity blaze - All Rights Reserved
Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
1 posted 2004-03-14 08:33 AM


Serenity,

I am much delighted that you are mainly directing this post towards Brad because now I hear a certain melody playing in my head... and it goes like this...

Shave-and-a-hair-cut...


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

2 posted 2004-03-14 08:44 AM


Opeth? I directed it mainly at Brad because I thought he might be kind to me. (He has been in the past so I thought he might be a good person to ask.)

But you are welcome, if not MOST welcome--and I apologize if that seemed like an exclusion to you.

I'm just not in the mood to toss down a gauntlet, honestly.

So come back you. Tell me what you think?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
3 posted 2004-03-14 07:00 PM


Something may not be believed in or not believed in unless it exists.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
4 posted 2004-03-14 07:17 PM


quote:
I once thought philosophy was about finding answers, but I can see now where it's more a discipline of the mind--so if this should be deemed more suitable in another forum, then yes, it's fine with me.


To me, philosophy is about dialogue.  Religion is a lecture.

quote:
And I'm certainly not intending to single any one out--and nope--that's not exactly true. Although it's presumptuous of me to assume to know anyone's beliefs,& although I'm actually hoping to hear from all of you, I confess I hope to hear most specificaly from Brad, because if I'm not mistaken Brad? you are an atheist? (If I'm mistaken, I still feel confident you will clear that up.) And no, not picking on you--if you can stand a bit of shmooze, I like you Brad.


I like shmooze.   But, yes, I'm an atheist. Metaphysically, I'm more of an agnostic I suppose, but I live my life as if there were no God.

quote:
But what I'm wondering here, is how an atheist copes.


Copes with what? Life is hard with or without God. One's self? I make plenty of mistakes, I am petty, can be jealous and foolish, and many more things that I don't particular like. I try to get better, step by step.

quote:
I have read the arguments that salvation is a comfortable delusion, convenient to the mind, (even a virus) and I have argued for the favor of delusions, wondering what is the harm of that?


For most people, I suspect there is no harm. For some, the world doesn't fit their belief so they ignore the world, they see the world as less than it is for something more than it is. As far as I can tell, what they want is a photograph.

quote:
My general philosophy regarding personal beliefs/religions has been this:

"If it gives a person comfort, and helps them to be a better person? Then why not?"


Because it also leads to bad things happening.

quote:
The end justifies the means.


That's the problem. The end, in this case, is the end of the world, the conversion or death of people who think differently than you do (Sometimes, it's just a slightly different belief), or the withholding of material things (things like medicine) for the proof of belief.

quote:
But I have a bit of a split mind, and I assume most do; I have a bit of the scientist in me that wants things proven. So I find myself sympathetic toward the agnostic/atheist.


Actually, that's still the theist in you. Empirical sciences don't 'prove' anything, they look for descriptions that describe what they see. They then test those descriptions again and again. It's the uncertainty that makes them successful. Perhaps the hardest thing to understand is that you can't be right if you can't be wrong. In other words, you can't win the game if you don't play it or play it by the rules.

quote:
Consider it a crisis of faith if need be, but what I really want to know is this--

Does denying the existance of God mean the denial of the existance of the soul?


For me, yes. Or rather, I don't understand any description of the soul.

quote:
If it does?

Does the acknowledgment of that premise preclude the possibility of life after death?

I have trouble with that.


Yes, but I think it's true that we can't imagine our own death. Not in any real sense. Have you ever fallen asleep for a moment, woke up, and then realized that it was six hours later? Death is when you don't wake up. This is really a complex thing, however, for, in a certain sense, if this description is correct, then there is no experience of death.  

quote:
I'm wondering too, on a personal level, that if the atheist believes (what? tell me) that "this" is all there is, what is there to give a person hope--or even define moral distinctions?


"That 'this' is all there is" is, to my way of thinking, the result of belief in something more. If that's how you're thinking, then you just haven't really looked at 'this' yet. Moral distinctions are made in the same way they always have been. We still have to choose between "God told me to kill my parents" and "God told me to honor my parents." I don't see what that "God told me to" really adds.

quote:
How do you personally come to terms with the loss of loved ones if this is all that is?


Honor their memory. Write poems about them. Counter-factuals are still useful tools here. What do you think they would want you to do, if they were still alive? What would you want others to do, if you died?

Have you seen "AI"? I found it a deeply disturbing movie. A thousand years under the water looking at a blue faerie. That's not love and that's certainly not human. In the back of my head, I kept thinking, "Is this what some people actually want?"

quote:
How do you deal with the fact that there is no just reward for just living "right"? "Why bother?" comes to mind...


The reason to live 'right' is caring about other people, or perhaps living 'right' is to care about other people. You bother for the same reason.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
5 posted 2004-03-14 07:45 PM


Of course you realize that you're asking for an essay.  (Well, whether or not you're asking for one I'm working on one... )  

mo later

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
6 posted 2004-03-14 09:22 PM


If one disbelieve in Jove, that is once an atheist.  If one disbelieve in Jove, and Ra, that is twice an atheist, if one disbelieve in Jove, Ra, and Shiva, that is thrice an atheist, if one disbelieve in Jove, Ra, and Shiva, and Odin, that is four times an atheist...
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

7 posted 2004-03-14 11:59 PM


Thank you very much, and Reb? I look forward to the essay too.

Now I believe I'll try to sleep a bit.

Maybe I'll be able to think a little more clearly after I "back-up" a few mental files.

Nite, all. And thanks again, Brad. But yes, I'll be back.  

[This message has been edited by serenity blaze (03-15-2004 12:01 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
8 posted 2004-03-15 12:23 PM


Good night Serenity
Susan Caldwell
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348
Florida
9 posted 2004-03-15 11:28 AM


I wasn't going to get into this however *frown*  what the heck does this (below) mean??


"If one disbelieve in Jove, that is once an atheist.  If one disbelieve in Jove, and Ra, that is twice an atheist, if one disbelieve in Jove, Ra, and Shiva, that is thrice an atheist, if one disbelieve in Jove, Ra, and Shiva, and Odin, that is four times an atheist..."

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
10 posted 2004-03-15 12:01 PM


Susan:

I think it's the neo-pagan viewpoint that all world religions (past and present) lead to the same truth, only from different directions.  By token of this view, adherents to Jewish, Christian, Moslem orthodoxy, or any other monotheistic view that rejects the notion that all roads lead to God, are one step from complete atheism.

I could be wrong.  Neo-paganism is far from being my forte.

Jim

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
11 posted 2004-03-15 12:19 PM


Atheism  


"Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods"

(From dictionary.com)

Susan Caldwell
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348
Florida
12 posted 2004-03-15 12:33 PM


Does this imply there are degrees to being atheist?  

I always believed an atheist was pretty much what the dictionary said.  An agnostic was/is someone that believes there may be an higher power but is not sure what or who it may be.  

To me...once..twice, and so on, the atheist implies degrees....

Maybe I am not understanding this...

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

13 posted 2004-03-15 12:39 PM


ah, thank you Ess, for clearing that up. You have a gentle way of making your points that I appreciate very much.

Now that I've gotten some sleep (yes, Cap, good to go for another week as you say) I'm re-reading this, and I realized something about myself--and it's just this:

Whenever I ask a bunch of questions, you can bet on the fact, that there is just one that I'm trying not to ask. It's not a nice question either, which is why I had problems with it to begin with. It's just that--even with a strong faith, I find it difficult at best to understand (or yes, Brad--rationalize) what the "point" of life might be. It was then that I thought that if I didn't have a strong moral rationale to cling to, I would have "checked" myself out of the library a long time ago. So logically, I had to question what keeps the atheist going. I also discussed with another Pipster this unfathomable "will to live". I told him (hey Ringo! ) that I didn't think that the desire to live was a conscious decision--if it were I would "allow myself" a ticket out everytime I fell ill. (Which is less often of late, thankfully)

So that's what I was getting at--I just thought it was a whole lot nicer to dance around it than to just blurt--"What prevents you from committing an act of suicide?" (mea culpa)

(I'm working on diplomacy, folks.)

But anyhoo, that's what I was thinking about, and I hope that didn't screw up Arnies essay either, I'm still looking forward to that.

[This message has been edited by serenity blaze (03-16-2004 10:19 PM).]

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
14 posted 2004-03-15 12:54 PM


I think there are some general categories of atheism and agnosticism.  Some I've read about are:

1. Atheists - deny the existence of God or the existence of gods

2. Hard Agnostics - one cannot know whether or not God exists

3. Soft Agnostics - do not know whether or not God exists

The words tend to lose their precise meanings if we broaden them to encompass more (for example, by saying a monotheist is atheistic as to polytheism gets a little confusing).

JMO.

Jim

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
15 posted 2004-03-15 03:10 PM


If people believe and choose to call gods false and nonexistant, then they are worthy of the same names that go around to people who see one God as false and disbelieve in Him (if we are going to continue name calling that is); but rightly, if we  segregate "theism" as "monotheism" and "polytheism" I suppose monotheists should actually be called polyatheists.


Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
16 posted 2004-03-15 03:33 PM


"I have read the arguments that salvation is a comfortable delusion, convenient to the mind, (even a virus) and I have argued for the favor of delusions, wondering what is the harm of that?"

~ One such harm I can fathom about the delusion is if it takes over the "self" so much that it causes the person to proclaim his/her delusion as truth; subsequently forcing that "truth" onto others who don't want or need it. The harm is dealt onto others, not necessarily the self.

"If it gives a person comfort, and helps them to be a better person? Then why not?"

~ I don't see any problem with a such a delussion if it gives a person comfort and helps to make them a better person.

"Does denying the existance of God mean the denial of the existance of the soul?"

~ I guess it comes down to how one interprets "soul."  The Egyptians belief in the soul continues on in mainstream christianity and other religions too. Myself being an agnostic, I believe the possibility of a spirit or soul if you will could exist after death. If God does not exist, then I believe that once one dies that is it... and I have no heartburn with that.

"How do you personally come to terms with the loss of loved ones if this is all that is?"

~ Brad, put it rather well.

"How do you deal with the fact that there is no just reward for just living "right"?"

~ Why should there be a reward? Why not just live your life to the best of your ability?

"Why bother?" comes to mind..."

~ Why bother with living "right?" Well, let's ask those who bombed the towers, if we could... they believed they did the right thing and hoped that the future of their people would have a better chance for a better place to live.

~ btw, Serenity, I took no negative meaning in your original post. That is why I added the  

Cool post.


"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

17 posted 2004-03-15 03:40 PM


Thanks Opeth. I worry about offending, because well, I seem to be quite good at it, even accidentally!

And does "right" living have to be rewarded?

sigh. I think I'm just looking for a little parity at this point in time. And being curious, I was wondering if somebody had a better answer to "coping" than I.

Smile.

Methinks everybody has better coping mechanisms than I...

Hugs you.

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
18 posted 2004-03-15 03:56 PM


Your welcome, Serenity.

In my mind, the question always ends up at which right? What might be right to some may be wrong to others. It all depends on various factors such as one's culture, faith, nation, etc.

For example, the bombings of the twin towers in NY was abominable to me, but I can empathize with those who commited the act. To them, it was the right thing to do... and I understand that and if I were one of them I may very well have done the same thing. Of course, there are many rights and wrongs which are regarding to be so by the vast majority of all who walk the earth, but there are other rights and wrongs which can only be labeled as such depending on those previous mentioned factors.

And I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the phsyiological, psychological and socialogical factors which pertain to any particular human being.

"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."

Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
19 posted 2004-03-15 04:11 PM


"But what I'm wondering here, is how an atheist copes."

~ As an agnostic, I don't ever look at it as coping. In fact, it is just the opposite of those who have faith in a particular god - they are the ones who are coping with life as they lean on their crutch to get them by. I don't cope. I merely live my life as I see fit.


"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

20 posted 2004-03-15 04:42 PM


Opeth? nodding but laughing too.

Now you just reminded me that I'd asked that "coping" question of one of my real life friends. She told me that I'd been coping my entire life.

OH.

"izzat what you call it?"

sheesh.



And I'm still committed to a belief system that is sort of a mix of everything, but on this side of the screen, black and white logic was looking purty good...

I think I'll go write something now.

Thanks again everybody. (and Reb, I'm still waiting--and Brad, especially, thank you for being so nice to me after I'd spent a couple of years of being a "brat" to YOU! You've been a gentleman and I thank you.)

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
21 posted 2004-03-15 04:55 PM


quote:
In fact, it is just the opposite of those who have faith in a particular god - they are the ones who are coping with life as they lean on their crutch to get them by.


That is assuming, of course, that the most believers are capable of accomplishing by leaning on their so-called "crutch" is "getting by."  But I just don't see history and experience bearing this out ... if I and my colleagues take great risks because of our shared belief in God's faithful providence and blessing on our good work, and attribute the resultant great achievements to God's concurrent providence, how is this "crutch" something to be ashamed of?

Jim


Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
22 posted 2004-03-15 06:52 PM


"That is assuming, of course, that the most believers are capable of accomplishing by leaning on their so-called "crutch" is "getting by."

~ You are assuming correctly.

"But I just don't see history and experience bearing this out ..."

~ Whose experience, not mine.... and on which historical facts? The facts of ancient Egyptian religion and how they are so similiar to Judaism, which in turn is so similiar to Christianity?

"... if I and my colleagues take great risks because of our shared belief in God's faithful providence"

~ Great risks? Who? This country is a foundry for christianity. I, on the other hand (and please spare me that I am feeling sorry for myself because I am not, I am merely expressing a point), have had to forfeit my naval future, among other aspects of my life, because of my beliefs... if only I were able to just say, "baaah" and become a sheep, I would of done much better in my life, not only socially, but professionally. Have you laid down all of your possesiions to the poor and truly picked up your cross as your saviour would have you? I don't think so.

"...and blessing on our good work, and attribute the resultant great achievements to God's concurrent providence,"

~ So, only through God's concurrent providence good works shall arise? Give me a break. I know about good works.

"...how is this "crutch" something to be ashamed of?"

~ Who said you should be ashamed of your crutch? Not I. Pick up you crutch and carry on. Some of us don't need crutches, that is all.




"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
23 posted 2004-03-15 07:24 PM


I'm looking forward to LR's essay as well.

If you're an aetheist, how does one keep from self-termination?

Uh, because it would hurt?

Opeth gets it right, I think, when he says I live my life as I see fit. I don't want to advocate aetheism as such. If you believe in God, then believe in God, I have nothing to offer in its place. But I don't accept questions like, "What is the point?" As if a single answer suffices. I've written poems about milk, ants, and changing diapers. To me, all of these were points.

Religion sets up the question so it can answer it. Stop asking it and you'll see, I don't know, that the reason for living is really nothing more than a good cup of coffee in the morning, reading Gabriel Garcia Marquez (in translation no less), watching your kids grow up, being amazed at 5,000 or more birds perch in front of your house, arguing evolution with Stephan, worrying about skin cancer, arguing with your spouse, thinking that Rupert didn't win Survivor was wrong, crying after 911, learning a second and then a third language, loving more than one person, realizing that Derrida is hard but not impossible, playing barbies with your daughter, and what the hell is going to happen next.  

One point? Give me a break.

    

[This message has been edited by Brad (03-16-2004 11:55 PM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

24 posted 2004-03-15 07:36 PM


On a good day, I believe all of this:

"Religion sets up the question so it can answer it. Stop asking it and you'll see, I don't know, that the reason for living is really nothing more than a good cup of coffee in the morning, reading Gabriel Garcia Marquez (in translation no less), watching your kids grow up, being amazed at 5,000 or more birds perch in front of your house, arguing evolution with Stephan, worrying about skin cancer, arguing with your spouse, thinking that Rupert didn't win Survivor was wrong, crying after 911, learning a second and then a third language, loving more than one person, realizing that Derrida is hard but not impossible, playing barbies with your daughter, and what the hell is going to happen next."

On a bad day I don't. When bad days start piling up, one up the other--and the days turn out to be a year, sometimes more?I think a bullet in the head wouldn't hurt.

not an invitation for sympathy, we all have our moments. But what gets me through mine is a firm spiritual foundation. I was genuinely puzzled as to how someone can do without that during the times we all have that can only be termed as "hopelessness."

I thank you again for your patience.

And you want a break? Granted.   I think I'll give myself one while I'm at it.

And yes, chuckle, I know I ask for a lot. But if you're gonna ask for a little, you might as well ask for it all.



we aren't so different, you and I.

A non-philosophic hug to ya Brad.

  



Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
25 posted 2004-03-15 08:01 PM


"... I was genuinely puzzled as to how someone can do without that during the times we all have that can only be termed as "hopelessness."

~ Speaking for myself, I find strength within myself all of the time, especially when I need it most. Tapping that inner-strength, that is the key for me. And I should know, I have been doing it for various reasons all of my adult life.

"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

26 posted 2004-03-15 08:22 PM


Nodding here vigorously.

Me too.

Something in me just won't "give."

And consciously, I attribute that to a firm spiritual foundation, as well as just a genetic quality of "contrary."

But as I conceded earlier, I don't think that "will to live" is something conscious.
(and yes, feel free to debate that too)

So what I am wondering here is this:

Even if my spiritual beliefs are a program--do they not serve a purpose? If reality is a collective "hunch" and we are aware that it is, do we do a service or a disserve to humanity in the discussion of our beliefs? Are we free to "borrow" from reality?

and sigh..smile. Opeth, I said I wasn't coming back, but y'made me look and better? I felt compelled to answer.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
27 posted 2004-03-15 09:10 PM


Serenity,

I'm not sure you see what I mean yet. I'm not saying I appreciate a good cup of coffee, I'm saying that a good cup of coffee is a reason to live.

Inner strength? Sorry, guys, but that's just another way of stating a religious world view. The world is hard, difficult, and indifferent to us, I give you that, but asking a question that can only be answered ineffably, doesn't help.

Making it to work on time, that helps.


Opeth
Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543
The Ravines
28 posted 2004-03-15 09:14 PM


"Inner strength? Sorry, guys, but that's just another way of stating a religious world view."

~ Brad, according to your statement, I guess my religion is the belief and faith in myself. Anybody want to join me in my religous faith?

"You sleep in the night yet the night and the silent water still so dark."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
29 posted 2004-03-15 09:18 PM


How about a bit of inner strength and a good cup of coffee?

And a box of choclates

    

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

30 posted 2004-03-15 09:37 PM


Ess? I'm with you.

On those really bad days, it takes inner strength just to SWALLOW mine!


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

31 posted 2004-03-15 09:58 PM


and Brad. Let me think a bit.

I suspect that we do agree--and I'd hate to miss that opportunity just because I typed something rash.

Fortitude in a cup of coffee?

nodding.

Sure.

Divinity in a doorknob too.

(and that was just the twelve step program!)



thanks again. I'm admiring the logic, and I'm not questioning the "rightness" of it for you--I'm just being curious me.

It's like this. If I see a way that looks good to me, I'll ask.

I want every tool that is available to me. Even yours.

(now that sounded naughty, forgive me) But I think you know what I mean.



Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
32 posted 2004-03-15 10:36 PM


(strumming my fingers)

And -- you WANT an essay?  I'm still considering...

My conclusion would be the last place anyone would look -- probably.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
33 posted 2004-03-15 10:55 PM


Ah, that was cute.

But, no, not fortitude in a cup of coffee.

It's the taste.

Or how about frozen strawberries or blackberries topped with sugar?

It's the taste.

What so often seems to happen in discussions of spirituality is a tendency to downplay the little details, to turn everything into a symbol for something else, higher, nobler, or whatever.  Now, if you want to say that these and many other little details are evidence for spirituality, I'm cool with that. I'll disagree, but at least we'd be on the same page -- or cafe.
    

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

34 posted 2004-03-15 10:55 PM


exactly why I want it, Reb.

sigh...don't hold my typings against me.

show me what you mean.



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
35 posted 2004-03-16 12:02 PM


Karen,


Of course you know I'm glad that you're inclined to see the need for Spirituality.  I know you wanted atheists/ agnostics in particular to respond.  But if I may comment on a couple of things ...


you said:  
quote:
I have read the arguments that salvation is a comfortable delusion, convenient to the mind, (even a virus) and I have argued for the favor of delusions, wondering what is the harm of that?
My general philosophy regarding personal beliefs/religions has been this:
"If it gives a person comfort, and helps them to be a better person? Then why not?"

I would agree with Brad (somewhat) on this one, granted his premise were correct.  His supposition is that religion is a false hope.  And IF it is a false hope ... a delusion and nothing more, then it will inevitably produce poor results.  His charge against believing delusions is based on the same reasons that Doctors do not typically hide a diagnosis of cancer from a patient.  The most healthy thing is to face the facts head on ... not to bury one's head in the sand.  But again, I believe his premise is wrong.   My defense of "faith" would be somewhere along the lines of explaining, showing, confirming that it is not a delusion ... that God is real and is not antithetical to science or reason.  Whereas your approach, in conceding that it might be a delusion after all, would have to involve defending the merits of retreating into fantasy.  I think that in order to ultimately hold on to faith (or the Theistic view) as a valid and real comfort, you will have to come to the conclusion that it is no chimera, but an accurate description of the human condition and of the world in which we live ... in short that God is real.



On your other points, I'm in agreement.  I of course think that until the revelation of our dependence upon God breaks through, people in general are basing their confidence in their current emotions, or the temporal things of life.  There is truth to the saying that there are no atheists in foxholes.  What will we do when all our props are gone?  And though Brad asserted that if a certain atheistic view of death were right then there is "no experience of death" ... the thing he (and others) fail to see is that if that same description is right then there is also no experience of life.  Because a sleeper who doesn't wake up, is separated from his waking moments by an uncrossable chasm.  Atheism really does render our lives of no meaning.  Spectres and ghosts who claim meaning aren't really convincing.  


For me atheism really does pave the way for nihilism.  Of course it seems that some, like Brad, claim to be comfortable with accepting a certain spectral existence as final.  But even he has admitted in former posts a vague awareness that there must (or should) be something more.  


It reminds me of a quote about a quote (in bold):

quote:
... we philosophers and 'free spirits' feel ourselves irradiated as by a new dawn by the report that the 'old God is dead'; our hearts overflow with gratitude, astonishment, presentiment and expectation.  At last the horizon seems open once more, granting even that it is not bright; our ships can at ast put out to sea in face of every danger; every hazard is again permitted to the discerner; the sea, our sea, again lies open before us; perhaps as never before did such an 'open sea' exist'  (Nietzsche, The Joyful Wisdom)

Nietzsche's starting point is the non-existence of God.  Man is therefore left to fend for himself.  Since God does not exist, man must devise his own way of life.  Admittedly, Nietzsche found it necessary to shout from time to time at those who still believed.  And the reader of the above passage may discern a certain wistful note among the more jubilant strains.  For if God no longer exists, man must go it alone.  While this brings a certain sense of relief, it also brings anxiety about the future.

(Colin Brown, Philosophy and the Christian Faith)



Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
36 posted 2004-03-16 12:57 PM


I don't think the beliefsystem of any is based around NOT believing in God.  The word atheism though refers to one by what one does not believe in; and therefore is ignorant of what the person does believe in.  One may do the same thing with believers in God, then.  Believers in God, or Gods, often don't believe in this other God, or this other religious thing.  And Christians also don't believe in things.  They don't believe in polytheism from what I understand.  When they decide to call disbelievers in their God atheists therefore if we judge them by the same mean, we see that they may be called atheists as well, as I showed earlier, not believing in Gods other people believe in.  Why should we call a Christian an antiodinist, an unnaturalist, or polyatheist (for not believing in Polytheism). It will seems absurd to most.  But then why is it right to refer to someone who doesn't believe in God or Gods by what they don't believe in??
Life and Being continues beyond the belief of God, and so does believing.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
37 posted 2004-03-16 01:12 AM


Ess,

I was using Nietzsche (as one of the more consistent atheistic thinkers) as an example.  If you read his works, the non-existence of God was indeed the basis of his views of the world, morality, and life in general.

"Atheist" is a term used to identify what kind of worldview a person holds.  Even Brad said earlier, "yeah I'm an atheist".  Atheist doesn't denote that someone doesn't believe in a certain kind of God, it means they really don't believe in a God at all.  In short, a true atheist is a strict naturalist.  Mechanistic nature is all there is.  Though you're not a Christian, I wouldn't call you an atheist.  Usually among those who don't believe in a supernatural personal God above the universe, atheist does not hold a negative connotation.  At any rate, I don't think the word usage is an issue right now.  To make it an issue only detracts from the aim of the thread.  Serenity's post was titled "calling all atheists".  And if some are willing to respond and wear that description with no problem, why should a problem be made of it?


respectfully,

Stephen.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

38 posted 2004-03-16 01:27 AM


Now stuff like this is what makes me appreciate Brad--at least he's not prejudice--he's sure we are all deluded:

" would agree with Brad (somewhat) on this one, granted his premise were correct.  His supposition is that religion is a false hope.  And IF it is a false hope ... a delusion and nothing more, then it will inevitably produce poor results.  His charge against believing delusions is based on the same reasons that Doctors do not typically hide a diagnosis of cancer from a patient.  The most healthy thing is to face the facts head on ... not to bury one's head in the sand.  But again, I believe his premise is wrong.   My defense of "faith" would be somewhere along the lines of explaining, showing, confirming that it is not a delusion ... that God is real and is not antithetical to science or reason.  Whereas your approach, in conceding that it might be a delusion after all, would have to involve defending the merits of retreating into fantasy.  I think that in order to ultimately hold on to faith (or the Theistic view) as a valid and real comfort, you will have to come to the conclusion that it is no chimera, but an accurate description of the human condition and of the world in which we live ... in short that God is real."

Stephan? You and I tend to part ways with what I perceive to be your conviction that your belief system is the only way. After that? Discussion seems a bit condescending to my taste:

"Whereas your approach, in conceding that it might be a delusion after all, would have to involve defending the merits of retreating into fantasy."

Not necessarily. No more than yours, m'friend, and I think that is what Brad and others have been saying all along. The fact that I am willing to concede the point for argument's sake doesn't make me any less believable than, um, with all due respect, YOU, for instance.

A belief in bookworm faeries can be backed up by faith, and with a bit of history of mythology too.

The basis of it all still boils down to, that if I am to be made exempt from faith by scientific proof, then I personally feel there is no "levelizer" of a moral playing ground. The doubts start gaining on me quickly and it is a very cruel world.

So, although Brad answered my question, I'm still having trouble in conceiving the answer, because I know, cups of coffee are soon over with, and the effects of caffeine are short-lived. And yes, when the grounds boil down, I want something else...to get me through this, "semi-calm" kind of life. Baby.

Grin?

And I promised to think too...sigh?





Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
39 posted 2004-03-16 01:58 AM


Stephen,

Thank you for clearing that up.
I lost sight of the nature of using that word.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-16-2004 03:24 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
40 posted 2004-03-16 04:18 AM


[deleted by Essorant].
hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
41 posted 2004-03-16 12:15 PM


As an agnostic, I don't have trouble coping with things on the metaphysical level- the physical, tangible world of crap happens is another story... I grew up in a secular household, and while I still wish my mom had explained to me the merits of secularism (rather than toss me unprepared to the hounds of true believers who would cry out with disbelief "You haven't been baptized??") I still carry that with me...

I still honestly believe that if I do my best to live as a good person- if I try not to harm people and even, sometimes, try to help... everything's going to turn out the right way. I believe that with the same caliber of conviction that most Christians believe in Christ... because it's what makes sense to me, in my worldview.

That being said... I used to have a problem with people using the "crutch" or delusion of religion. But in the last couple of years I think I've found that we all have a crutch... me? I bottle my feelings and then I demolish a nice-sized steak, or I indulge in some chocolate or, say, and entire pint of Ben & Jerry's. I'm not stupid. I know it's only going to make me weaker in the long run (by adding pounds and reducing my resolve) but sometimes people just need to use coping mechanisms, I'm convinced of that.

I don't think people who believe other than the way I believe are necessarily using a coping mechanism- a lot of people are very educated about their faith, and stick with it because it makes sense, not just out of fear or a need to sleep at night. So really, who am I to condemn anyone for their beliefs?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
42 posted 2004-03-16 01:33 PM


Serenity:
quote:
The fact that I am willing to concede the point for argument's sake doesn't make me any less believable than, um, with all due respect, YOU, for instance.


I have conceded for arguments sake that were Brad's premise right, then so are some of his conclusions.  That IS for argument's sake.  My stance is that there is no real defense of Christianity or any other kind of supernaturalism if it is wrong.  It seems that what you are preferring me to do is to rescind what I know to be true, in argument, and still be able to defend some kind of benefit or hope from a supernatural belief.  When I don't see how it can be done, how can I do that?  After all, you've never once said that you only concede "for argument's sake", and that in reality you believe in a transcendent personal God.  I take your arguments (and all arguments here) to be somewhat reflective of real beliefs we hold.




quote:
A belief in bookworm faeries can be backed up by faith, and with a bit of history of mythology too.


Belief in faeries as mythology and imagination can certainly be backed up with history, literature, etc ...  But the idea that they are real independent entities has little defense.  I don't believe that Christian theism falls under the same category.  Though it has been claimed to be, and attempts are made often to mythologize the faith.  I will appeal the the evidentialist in Jim at this point...   There is enough evidence to place Christianity in a category far removed from creative mythology.  And this in addition to the weight of philosphical and experiential testimony.



quote:
The basis of it all still boils down to, that if I am to be made exempt from faith by scientific proof, then I personally feel there is no "levelizer" of a moral playing ground. The doubts start gaining on me quickly and it is a very cruel world.



Exempt from faith by scientific proof ... means what?  Do you think that faith is contrary to scienctific discovery?  Or that it is merely based on something deeper than scientific discovery?  There is a vast difference between these two notions.  If science (that which is truly confirmed beyond reasonable doubt) is truly at odds with faith, then faith is mistaken.  I just happen to believe that such a Kierkigaardian split does not exist in reality.


My whole point is that if your "faith" is really contrary to valid science, then you are hard pressed to hold on to it as faith, or to defend it in the eyes of others.  



Stephen.      

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
43 posted 2004-03-16 01:55 PM


Hey Hush.

BTW How'd your project turn out?


quote:
I still honestly believe that if I do my best to live as a good person- if I try not to harm people and even, sometimes, try to help... everything's going to turn out the right way. I believe that with the same caliber of conviction that most Christians believe in Christ... because it's what makes sense to me, in my worldview.



I think Serenity's rhetorical question of "Why bother?" has some relevence here.  What is the "right" way in a universe with no "right way"?  Is your worldview clinging to a moral superiority without an overarching standard ... a moral law without a lawgiver?  Is the final analysis of right living versus wrong living merely human preference ... a human who was just a blink in the cosmic storm?  I would like to ask what you consider your moral convictions to be based upon?  This is the kind of thing that Nietzsche spoke about ... the holding of an ethic when there is no base for it.  "The New Morality" he proposed was basically a description of humanity waking up to the fact that our traditional ethics have no anchor point at all ... of course all of this came from making God's funeral his foundation of thought.  



Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
44 posted 2004-03-16 02:09 PM


For many early peoples Spirit and Nature seemed conterminous and interwoven: always part of the same fabric, a microcosm wherever you look, smaller things of larger, and larger things of smaller, spiritual things of natural things, and natural things of spiritual things.  You might not avoid Spirit for a natural path, or Nature for a Spiritual path, for either was still always in the path of the other.  
That is one of the worldviews I admire most because it suggests a continuation of Spirit and Nature always in each other; and even in impersonal and "inanimate" things, energy that is still derived from Spirit and Nature, not just one or the other.  Why may not modernists converge a bit closer into views like our ancient ancestors had instead of being now almost as seperate sects?
I don't think Religion and Science were ever so distant as they are now forced by modernism.    Scientists and Spiritualists now seem fixed on segregation of Spirit and Nature and treating them as if Religion is the bridge to the Spirit, and Science is the bridge to Nature.  Really I don't think either are a "bridge" to either or away from either, because  both Spirit and Nature are always right HERE.  You can't miss them      


[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-16-2004 06:03 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
45 posted 2004-03-16 06:49 PM


quote:
So, although Brad answered my question, I'm still having trouble in conceiving the answer, because I know, cups of coffee are soon over with, and the effects of caffeine are short-lived. And yes, when the grounds boil down, I want something else...to get me through this, "semi-calm" kind of life. Baby.


It's precisely because the cup of coffee is short-lived that you should enjoy it. Value comes from the ephemeral, not the ineffable. Earlier, I mentioned that certainty is not something we need or should want, certainty has a companion that also needs to disappear, eternity.  

It's a long time.

The irony is that most people look for coping with the mundane and trivial by wanting the same and wanting it eternally. From my point of view, you're just asking for more of the same disease. What most people are asking for is a moment in time that extends forever, but that's not us, that's a happy photograph. I don't mean you're looking at a photograph, I mean that the picture of salvation is being in the photograph. Think about it, you don't grow old, you don't judge, you no longer have to worry about being judged, you don't have to act, make decisions, be sad, remember or regret the mistakes you made, you don't have to be human anymore.

You can't enjoy that cup of coffee anymore.

Ah, but you smile, yes, you smile for eternity.

The dream of many spiritual folks is my nightmare.  

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
46 posted 2004-03-16 07:27 PM


Thinking about Stephan's presuppositions. If there is a God, I would ask him to take the chosen away, give them what they want, but put them on another earth (the universe is big enough and God can do anything afterall), but don't send the rest of us to a fiery pit, let us be.

And you know what, the chosen can even come back if they want to (Though it's unclear to me if they could still want).

Curious, is there compassion in Heaven?

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
47 posted 2004-03-16 09:23 PM


I'm not holding anything against you Blazey -- I just can't imagine why you would WANT an essay in the middle of what's a decent, fun, conversation.  Maybe another thread another time...  

Brad is getting close to what I would be saying -- at least partly -- our agnosticisms aren't identical though -- when he talks about uncertainty.

This would be one of my themes -- security and idolatry vs. insecurity/uncertainty and truth (that we can know).

This would tie into my main point in that the best 'coping' tool for dealing with the pains of life is -- the pain itself.

The fact is -- I haven't self-terminated.

Here's a question though -- why do people WITH faith systems commit suicide?  (it's not a trick question)

quote:

[Atheism] believes that truth for truth's sake is the highest ideal and that virtue is its own reward.
-- Joseph Lewis

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (03-16-2004 10:27 PM).]

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

48 posted 2004-03-16 10:10 PM


People? I really am enjoying your banter for the most part, but would you all mind just using the word suicide instead of what you have been using? It touches a little too close to home with me and drags me back to that horrible moment as if were happening all over again. I'm not angry or anything, just asking for a bit of sensitivity because you really can't imagine just how painful it is to hear that term unless you've had a loved one who did it. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who has experienced losing someone that way. Okay?
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

49 posted 2004-03-16 10:17 PM


My apologies for the insensitivity. I understand completely.

As I said, I have much to learn about "tact".

And Reb, that is a fair enough question, and one that I have asked myself at a few memorial services. I could only assume at that time, that their faith was not what I assumed it was--and in one particular instance, it was perversely more than I'd expected. My friend assumed that because she was "saved" her sins were forgiven before she committed them--including her suicide.

sigh.

Now excuse me while I go edit, with my humblest apologies to Denise and anyone else offended by my poor choice of language.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

50 posted 2004-03-16 10:44 PM


Thanks, Serenity, I appreciate your understanding.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

51 posted 2004-03-16 10:51 PM


I am geniunely sorry Denise, and I want to thank you for reminding me of the delicacy of this discussion.

I hope we can continue to discuss this, but if it is deemed inappropriate for an open forum, that's entirely understandable too.

It IS a sensitive topic, especially when coupled with questions of faith.

I'll try to be more aware of that in the future. Thanks again.


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

52 posted 2004-03-16 11:23 PM


No, that's fine, Serenity, continue on.
hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
53 posted 2004-03-17 03:13 AM


Stephen- the project came out really well- I'll send you a copy when I get the spare back.. it might not be till end of semester tho.

Anyway, what do I base my morality on? You know, I would almost call it instinct... pretty much all belief systems have some form of the golden rule, which leads me to believe that humans have come to the general conclusion that stuff that sucks when it is done to us, also sucks when it is done to others, and is therefore wrong to do. Does that make sense?

We learned of a theory in my intro to religion class that when people who claim to be atheists strive to do good, either for themselves or others, they are exhibiting an intrinsic believe in God because they are attempting to add to that 'something greater.' Even Brad's intense love and value on the fleeting moment of coffee would be considered God's work.

I don't have trouble believing that. And the simple fact that God would allow him/herself to work through poeple who not only don't believe in Christ as the one true savior, but even through people who don't even believe God exists, says to me that there is more than just the one way to God, and more than just the one way to salvation. However:

I haven't read this thread too closely... not sure if Brad has addressed this or not... but I don't believe in original sin. Furthermore, I don't really believe in sin (or at least I don't believe in calling it that- I just call things I think are wrong 'wrong.') But the concept that all of humanity is fundamentally flawed and needs to be 'saved' doesn't quite jibe with me, and I guess I'm more atheistic in mindset to that than anything else. I believe that because of that instinctive golden-rule reflex, most people are inherently good. I don't think we need to be saved... I just think that we need to wake up to the injustice around us. If everyone in America understood that the T-shirt they wear was sewn by overworked laborers, possibly children, being paid slave wages... I don't think it could go on in the same way that it does.

Regarding suicide... why does anyone commit suicide? It's when hope runs out... and hope can run out for anyone.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
54 posted 2004-03-17 08:35 PM


One of the standard arguments used by atheists is the, "this is enough for me" argument. What they mean by that is best expressed here:
http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/archive/2001/0605012mass.html

The picture at that site is not of stars but of galaxies each with millions and millions of stars (or Carl Sagan's billions and billions), each with a unique stellar story just waiting to be told.

One of the most irritating arguments against athesism is that of egotism. Somehow, an atheist is egotistical because we reject being the favored species of an infinite God for being an insignificant speck, not even a speck, on that five hundred million light year picture.

Another reason to keep living is our irrelevance.



Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

55 posted 2004-03-17 10:49 PM


quote:
The irony is that most people look for coping with the mundane and trivial by wanting the same and wanting it eternally. From my point of view, you're just asking for more of the same disease. What most people are asking for is a moment in time that extends forever, but that's not us, that's a happy photograph. I don't mean you're looking at a photograph, I mean that the picture of salvation is being in the photograph. Think about it, you don't grow old, you don't judge, you no longer have to worry about being judged, you don't have to act, make decisions, be sad, remember or regret the mistakes you made, you don't have to be human anymore.


Brad, is that what you really think people want? I'm not looking for more of the same, I'm definitely looking for better. And I think the coffee will be pretty darned good too!

Those galaxies are awesome. I guess for me, just like being next to the ocean, they give me a sense of perspective, of my smallness compared to them, but they also give me a sense of the greatness of the one who I believe created them and me.

Serenity, I think finding ways to cope is essential to survival and I think everyone, with or without a spiritual belief of one sort or another, has coping mechanisms, and I think the coping mechanisms can short circuit in everyone too.  And I agree with Hush that hope is an important factor, too, in our ability/desire to cope.  

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
56 posted 2004-03-17 11:29 PM


I don't know, I just try to redescribe what I hear. Be careful what you wish for and all that.

Your ocean comment brings to mind the first time we brought our daughter to the beach. She said (in Korean), "Wow, that's a lot of water!"

Reason again for an atheist to keep breathing.

Let me state again that I can't really argue against a spirituality that celebrates the mundane and the trivial, the ephemeral over the ineffable, a spirituality that gives you a perspective or perspectives on the world.

My beef is much more that spirituality, in the promise or hope for something more, inevitably leads you to experience the here and now less.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

57 posted 2004-03-17 11:43 PM


okay.

I got a little shy of this thread for a bit. I think you all understand though, that my original intent was more of a sincere seeking, sorta like asking "what d'ya have in your lunchbox?"

That, now understood, I actually went a little farther in my sidewindings than I intended--just know that I'm reading and considering--I didn't have intent of implying that without a faith in a higher power that anyone SHOULD consider self-destruction, just that it was beyond my limited understanding on how that didn't present itself as an option.

Perhaps it is mere childish wishing, a "crutch" to look at the history and (yes, evolution, of humankind) and want to be a part of some glorious culmination--even if it's beyond my understanding now-- recognizing (or yes, Brad, pretending) that there is some higher intelligence, and to go so further in that arrogance to pray (or just delude myself) that there is a spark of that in me...

but that's what gets me through the night.

I do know that it's not the promise of morning coffee, or even, 80 mgs. of methadone. (since we're talking extremes here) and I know, here I go again, because it all boils down to the essence of life, and gee, that's all I want to know.

I just know something in me wants to grow--that's what I was talking about when I said that a "will to live" is something subconcious. It can't be reasoned into or OUT of the psyche. Trying to define the essence of that, is for poets and philosphers though.

There may not be "divinity in a doorknob" but there sure is divinity in the perception of it.

or so I like to think?

*peace good philosophers*

Ya'll are very good company.

and nodding yes, there are other questions too, and I'll be back...

(shaking my head)

because?

something in me just won't "give".

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
58 posted 2004-03-18 12:43 PM


Brad:  
quote:
Value comes from the ephemeral, not the ineffable.



I'll try to remember that the next time I buy a car ... or anything else.    


quote:
The irony is that most people look for coping with the mundane and trivial by wanting the same and wanting it eternally. From my point of view, you're just asking for more of the same disease. What most people are asking for is a moment in time that extends forever, but that's not us, that's a happy photograph.


Believe it or not ... I sympathize with your point about common conceptions of heaven, and see much truth in it.  You must remember that Christ promised to be able (actually the only one who is able) to give us our real selves  ... not just the repeat button played over and over.


C.S. Lewis in "Reflections on the Psalms" was at least bordering on some similiar concerns:

"It is surely, therefore, very possible that when God began to reveal himself to men, to show them that He and nothing else is their true goal and the satisfaction of their needs, and that He has a claim upon them simply by being what He is, quite apart from anything He can bestow or deny, it may have been absolutely necessary that this revelation should not begin with any hint of future Beatitude or Perdition.  These are not the right point to begin at.  An effective belief in them, coming too soon, may even render almost impossible the development of (so to call it) the appetite for God; personal hopes and fears, too obviously exciting, have got in first.  Later, when, after centuries of spiritual training, men have learned to desire and adore God, to pant after Him "as pants the hart", it is another matter.  For then those who love God will desire not only to enjoy Him, but "to enjoy Him forever", and will fear to lose Him.  And it is by that door that a truly religious hope of Heaven and fear of Hell can enter; as corollaries to a faith already centered upon God, not as things of any independent or intrinsic weight.  It is even arguable that the moment "Heaven" ceases to mean union with God and "Hell" to mean separation from Him, the belief in either is a mischievous superstition; for then we have, on the one hand, a merely "compensatory" belief (a "sequel" to life's sad story, in which everything will "come all right") and on the other, a nightmare which drives men into asylums or makes them persecutors.

Fortunately by God’s good providence, a strong and steady belief of that self-seeking and sub-religious kind is extremely difficult to maintain, and is perhaps possible only to those who are slightly neurotic.  Most of us find that our belief in the future life is strong only when God is in the center of our thoughts; that if we try to use the hope of “Heaven” as a compensation (even for the most innocent and natural misery, that of bereavement) it crumbles away.  It can, on those terms, be maintained only by ardous efforts of controlled imagination; and we know in our hearts that the imagination is our own.  As for Hell, I have often been struck, in reading the “hell fire sermons” of our older divines, at the desperate efforts they make to render these horrors vivid to their hearers, at their astonishment that men, with such horrors hanging over them, can live as carelessly as they do.  But perhaps it is not really astonishing.  Perhaps the diviners are appealing, on the level of self-centered prudence and self-centered terror, to a belief which, on that level, cannot really exist as a permanent influence on conduct- though of course it may be worked up for a few excited minutes or even hours.

All of this is one man’s opinion ... Other views no doubt can be taken.
"



Brad:
quote:
Think about it, you don't grow old, you don't judge, you no longer have to worry about being judged, you don't have to act, make decisions, be sad, remember or regret the mistakes you made, you don't have to be human anymore.
You can't enjoy that cup of coffee anymore.
Ah, but you smile, yes, you smile for eternity.
The dream of many spiritual folks is my nightmare.  



But then why isn't your conception of atheistic destiny also a nightmare?  No growing old, no judging, no being judged, no acting, no making decisions, no sadness, no memory, no humanity.  

From a Biblical view of "Eternal Life", your description is caricatured beyond recognition.  But it does sound more like what naturalists describe as the end of being.  Maybe you're just describing bad descriptions, but it's certainly not an accurate description of what the Bible paints.  Though if your description were close to being right, I just might be inclined to agree with your conclusion.


quote:
...don't send the rest of us to a fiery pit, let us be.



What of the possibility that these two options are one and the same?  Many Theologians have considered the absence of God to be worse than any of the physical descriptions of torment.  Dependent beings asking to be left alone, are asking for ultimate ruin.


quote:
Though it's unclear to me if they could still want



Why?


quote:
Curious, is there compassion in Heaven?



It would be nice to not need it, that is if there were no pain or affliction to warrant it's expression ... But since Compassion springs from love, It's root would remain nevertheless, and therefore all the tenderness that compassion entails would not be lost.  Do you lose something with your wife on days when you aren't required to specifically have "compassion" on her?  How about admiration and respect and the love of beauty?  Love has many different hues.


Having said that, I am not sure that compassion will be absent, or that some form of it will not be fitting to circumstances.  I just wanted to explain that the absence of the occasion for compassion (pain), is certainly different than the absence of the capacity to give it.    



LR:
quote:
why do people WITH faith systems commit suicide?



I suppose it's because a faith system does not guarantee adherence to that faith.  Just as a Math book does not guarantee a good Math student.  Though the former can be without the latter, it's hard to conceive of the latter without the former.



Stephen.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
59 posted 2004-03-18 12:56 PM


Brad:

quote:
My beef is much more that spirituality, in the promise or hope for something more, inevitably leads you to experience the here and now less.


Huh?!?  Really?!?  I'll try to come back to this later, but I'm experiencing a little too much of the "here and now" to comment.

Jim  

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
60 posted 2004-03-18 06:23 PM


quote:
Perhaps it is mere childish wishing, a "crutch" to look at the history and (yes, evolution, of humankind) and want to be a part of some glorious culmination--even if it's beyond my understanding now-- recognizing (or yes, Brad, pretending) that there is some higher intelligence, and to go so further in that arrogance to pray (or just delude myself) that there is a spark of that in me...


Let's call this the 'mystical more'. All that I have been trying to do is celebrate the 'mundane mere'. From a simple cup of coffee to a picture of the nearby universe, to the sharing of wonder and lots of water . . . and many, many other things.  

But why don't they satisfy? Because, thinking about it over the night, I didn't answer your question.

I can't.

Questions like "What gets you though the night?" or "What is the meaning of life?" or "What's it all about?" are questions that presuppose the structure of the answer. In the same way that the question 2+2=? presupposes the structure of the answer. If I answer 4, you'll say right. If I say 8, you'll say wrong. If I say George Washington was the first president of the US, you would be understandably confused.

If you assumed that I misunderstood the question and I emphasized and asserted that my answer was true, and it's true enough, what would you do?

I contend that you already know the answer to the question and that answer precludes any and all examples from the world. The answer has to be "something more". By 'something more' I don't mean a pointer to something beyond this world, and as yet indescribable world, I offered an answer to that by giving a picture of the nearby universe.  

When you ask what's in your lunchbox, I'll describe an egg salad sandwich, a chocolate chip cookie (maybe two), and milk. You'll say, "That's it?" You'll take my lunchbox and keep looking for 'something more'.

quote:
but that's what gets me through the night.


And fair enough. What I keep forgetting to emphasize is something I mentioned in my first comment here. I don't think I've ever asked, "How do I get through this night?" On many occasion, however, I've woken up and said, "Hey, I'm still here." Again, if I'm right and I can't answer your question, it's because I don't understand it. When people say, "If there's no God, life has no meaning?" I ask, "What do you mean by meaning?" Life doesn't have meaning, it is full of meanings.  What's the difference? The difference is that I won't accept one answer to the question. By this, I don't mean multiple pathways to the same thing -- 'something more' -- I mean different things are what makes life worth living. The end doesn't justify the means, the end is the means.

Process over point?

quote:
I do know that it's not the promise of morning coffee, or even, 80 mgs. of methadone.


When did I ever mention promise? I read this and I realized that I've kind of screwed up here. I wasn't giving reasons in the way that you were asking, I was giving reasons to live, not reasons for life.

Um, is that difference clear?

quote:
and I know, here I go again, because it all boils down to the essence of life, and gee, that's all I want to know.


I don't think it boils down to anything, certainly not one essence, certainly not essentially 'something more'. But why is that all you want to know?  

quote:
I just know something in me wants to grow--that's what I was talking about when I said that a "will to live" is something subconcious. It can't be reasoned into or OUT of the psyche. Trying to define the essence of that, is for poets and philosphers though


But what does growth mean to you? In what direction do you want to grow? Where do you want to go next? When someone asks these questions to me, in the discussion of the big questions (I think that's a confusion, of course. They aren't big questions, they are vague.), I don't have an answer. I don't know. If we bring it down a notch, I can answer them easily: get my Korean stronger, be a better husband and father, and read Behe's Darwin's Black Box. If you push me and ask, "Yeah, but what do you really want?"

Uh, world peace?


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

61 posted 2004-03-18 07:11 PM


can I have world peace and the shiny tiara?

*chuckle*

Brad? Yer alright.

Oh what the hell...

now that didn't hurt a bit, now did it?

(and thank you--you remind me of my brother yanno.)

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
62 posted 2004-03-18 08:28 PM


Your brother's name is Yanno?

Stephan,

I loved the Lewis quote. But I'm stuck with this one true goal and satisfaction. As far as I can tell, I have many goals and am satisfied by many things. Temporarily, sure, but still satisfied. That insertion of 'true' is just like 'really'. How do all the rest of these goals and satisfactions fit in to the one true one? What are the relationships among all these things? (Okay, I don't really expect an answer on that one. ).

You value a reliable car insomuch as you know that it can and will breakdown someday. If you didn't think that, you wouldn't value that engine starting every morning. It would be no more important to you than worrying about your next breath. Okay, now that I've gotten you thinking about the potential loss of breathing . . .

Jim,

Can I retreat and say that I never said it had to be that way, it just tends to?

berengar
Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86

63 posted 2004-03-18 10:20 PM


Hello everybody!!
"You value a reliable car insomuch as you know that it can and will breakdown someday. If you didn't think that, you wouldn't value that engine starting every morning. It would be no more important to you than worrying about your next breath. Okay, now that I've gotten you thinking about the potential loss of breathing . . ."

But, Brad, knowing the car will break down someday is different to expecting the old geezer to pack in at any moment.  Intellectually we accept transience, but it doesn't tend to factor in our emotional makeup or the way we run our lives (or at least so I would argue).  Making inductive references, planning your children's education, buying a book over the net...we do all these things because we assume things will probably continue pretty much the way they have done (more of the same) and this is just another way of living in the details of life as if they were permanent.  I think if we really approached things as things temporary, we couldn't function.

"My beef is much more that spirituality, in the promise or hope for something more, inevitably leads you to experience the here and now less."

No doubt, Jim, you'll have something different to say on this...
This is a hard comment to respond to primarily because it's not necessarily something that could be argued logically.  It's an emotional thing.  We all perceive the same things, but the emotionally based perspectives we bring to these same things differ so drastically we might be living in different mental universes.  For instance, Brad's statement.  One person's cheerful, liberating view of a world devoid of the divine is another person's nightmare...and vice versa.
For some people, the here and now is given expression and meaning precisely because it partakes in, and is a creation of, the 'divine'.  T¸º that element away and events are just a collection of meaningless points on a linear continuum, or that certain things which may not be so pretty or pleasant at face value are precisely what they appear...
Because I'm coming from an emotional angle, I will not (and can not) argue objective 'meaning', but I will contend that many people's stubborn refusal to do away with the spiritual and attempt to engage with the world 'only' is the most human thing we can do, because the primary function of the human mind is to impart meaning (or meanings, if you will; that's another story) to things.  Having a large and complicated cosmos (or ocean) out there does not make grandeur in itself - we lend it grandeur, and I suspect there is nothing more grand, or poetic, than the 'spiritual' language we use to describe whirlpool galaxies, the rings of Saturn, a laughing child and a good cup of tea, precisely because this language describes something more.  It lifts us out of ourselves and casts an aura of enchantment on all these things.
May I say in passing how much I've enjoyed reading this thread??


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
64 posted 2004-03-19 05:58 PM


Me:
quote:
Here's a question though -- why do people WITH faith systems commit suicide? (it's not a trick question)


Serenity:
quote:
And Reb, that is a fair enough question, and one that I have asked myself at a few memorial services. I could only assume at that time, that their faith was not what I assumed it was--and in one particular instance, it was perversely more than I'd expected. My friend assumed that because she was "saved" her sins were forgiven before she committed them--including her suicide.


Hush:
quote:
Regarding suicide... why does anyone commit suicide? It's when hope runs out... and hope can run out for anyone.



Stephan:
quote:
I suppose it's because a faith system does not guarantee adherence to that faith. Just as a Math book does not guarantee a good Math student. Though the former can be without the latter, it's hard to conceive of the latter without the former.



Is it not a better answer that religion doesn't cure depression?  Stephan and Serenity you both are making the archaic assumption that 'running out of hope' was some sort of a lack of 'inner strength' -- whereas we know that depression is quite a different thing altogether.

That's why one could be taken aback a little at the implied initial thread question or the subsequent expressed question.  At one level it assumes that Atheists or Agnostics are mentally ill.  Or lack inner strength.  It seems to stereotype.  Not just Atheists and Agnostics -- but persons with faith systems as well.

I'll be back with comments for Brad later.

  I'm not upset or offended Blazey -- I'm just talking to you..


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
65 posted 2004-03-19 11:36 PM


quote:
Stephan and Serenity you both are making the archaic assumption that 'running out of hope' was some sort of a lack of 'inner strength' -- whereas we know that depression is quite a different thing altogether.



But the new medical / genetic paradigm doesn't fit the description perfectly either.  After all, there are abundant testimonies of depression / suicidal thoughts being the result of a spiritual condition.  All of the cures certainly aren't explained by drugs.  I'm not making a sweeping statement that all examples of depression are due to one cause.  I just believe that the Spiritual aspect plays a large role in depression and suicide.  You can't say the medical truths we've discovered somehow rule out former insights into such problems.  


quote:
That's why one could be taken aback a little at the implied initial thread question or the subsequent expressed question.  At one level it assumes that Atheists or Agnostics are mentally ill.  Or lack inner strength.  It seems to stereotype.  Not just Atheists and Agnostics -- but persons with faith systems as well.

I don't think the question assumes anyone is "mentally ill".  It may assume that all have spiritual need ... or that all face an existential crisis.  But the question seems to take for granted (wrongly or rightly) that everyone has it, and deals with it in some way or another.  This may of course rub someone's proud fur the wrong way.  But personally I believe it is a generally accurate description of us all.

... at least sooner or later.  




Stephen.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
66 posted 2004-03-20 12:11 PM


Hush:
quote:
You know, I would almost call it instinct... pretty much all belief systems have some form of the golden rule


Can you think of any examples in nature of instincts which are disobeyed?  It could at least be argued that "immorality" is an instinct as well.  How can the standard which judges between two "instincts" itself be an instinct?

quote:
humans have come to the general conclusion that stuff that sucks when it is done to us, also sucks when it is done to others, and is therefore wrong to do. Does that make sense?



But it's not always that simple is it?  ... Sometimes things suck for others but not for me.  Sometimes the disadvantage of others works to my advantage.  Sometimes I can do wrong things which others aren't even aware of.  It can then be reasoned that without their knowing it can't really harm them.  So unless there's an ethic which tells me that certain actions are wrong regardless of percieved benefit, the golden rule doesn't really have a base.  


I understand it (the golden rule) can be followed because it appears self evident ... and without much questioning at all.  But I think it's prevalence in moral thought is evidence that we have a standard of morality over and above us.  Something we can obey or violate in priciple every day.


quote:
I don't really believe in sin (or at least I don't believe in calling it that- I just call things I think are wrong 'wrong.')



You should probably stop short of saying "wrong" and settle for something like "disagreeable".  Because I wonder if you consider certain actions as really "wrong" or merely as things you happen to think are wrong?  Is it a violation of an overarching moral principle, or just a violation of your subjective sensibilities?  This might contribute to your hesitation at calling anything sin.  


If you came to the conclusion that a moral law were a reality ... you might be more open to the idea of sin as a reality.  Because where there's no law, there can be no sin.  



Stephen.  

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

67 posted 2004-03-20 06:04 PM


I want to thank Stephan first of all, because he understood my poorly formed question better than I did. So...Thanks.

and Reb? Just hugs.
For the understanding. People who tend to step on toes sometimes give up "dancing" all together, and yawp, I'm a little skittish at times.

and a question for Brad about:

"Let's call this the 'mystical more'."

Can we call it something else? I'm wondering now, if you believe in evolution? And if you do, perhaps this desire for a "mystical more" is an impetus to evolve? Stephan is right that I assumed that everybody felt this hunger that I feel for "more". and Reb, is right too, in that I have some an archaic thoughts. I always considered this state of malcontent as a sickness--something to be cured, instead of (perhaps?) as a natural part of my DNA as a human being to always be reaching...or are those thoughts just "clouds in my coffee?"

(and Brad? I'm more likely to offer to share half my ham and cheese for half of your eggsalad. *giggle* We'll talk "brownies" some other time, tho.)


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
68 posted 2004-03-20 06:15 PM


quote:

It may assume that all have spiritual need ... or that all face an existential crisis.  But the question seems to take for granted (wrongly or rightly) that everyone has it, and deals with it in some way or another.  This may of course rub someone's proud fur the wrong way.  But personally I believe it is a generally accurate description of us all.

... at least sooner or later.



I don't have fur.. I have feathers     

And I don't have any problem with that statement -- with the caveat that my paradigm of the word 'spiritual' probably would not be identical -- I said at 'one level'.  At other levels it could mean other things including what Serenity said here;

quote:

That, now understood, I actually went a little farther in my sidewindings than I intended--just know that I'm reading and considering--I didn't have intent of implying that without a faith in a higher power that anyone SHOULD consider self-destruction, just that it was beyond my limited understanding on how that didn't present itself as an option.



Why would it be an option at all?  At that level it could assume that everyone is mentally ill -- and only those with a faith system have an incentive not to commit suicide.  It's problematic no matter how it is approached.  I'm not going apoplectic over it though.  I merely find it interesting.

I was once in a conversation on the job about ten years ago and uttered what I thought to be a fairly innocuous phrase, "the pot calling the kettle black".  Lo and behold one of my black co-workers began reading me the riot act about how it was a 'racist statement'.  Of course -- I protested -- pointed out how it had been an English colloquialism for ages... but, it didn't matter .. the inference was -- it assumes there is something wrong with being black to begin with.

If your church was having a picnic in the park that was open to the public and you sent out the primary Sunday-schoolers to tell everyone about it they might get notably different responses if they posed the following announcement to white or black invitees:  "We're having free watermelon and fried chicken in the park."

More later -- I only have one life... heh

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

69 posted 2004-03-20 06:38 PM


*rubbing my head* a bit.

Reb? I knew it was an awkward question. But I was just sitting here trying to think of a nice way to phrase something I'd been wondering, when it occurred to me, why not just blurt out the thought that I'd had, as the thought blurted itself out to me? I agree it's a startling thought/question, but then, that's why I decided to look for some help with answers instead of just pushing the politically incorrect thought back to the bottom of my psyche, unanswered.

I know you're taking it in stride, but I do have some thoughts that might be indefensible in a politically correct court.

I just hope it's okay to still ask.

I don't think it came from a place of judgement thought. I was actually wondering, what if I had agreed with the arguments against my faith--and how would I have coped with a recent trying time without my faith? The only answer I had for me, was that "I'd be dead, and more than likely, by my own hand."

I didn't mean to imply that those who had no religion were faithless or somehow deficient. I realize now that perhaps I did.

tsk. I really don't know what to do about that except to apologize/close the thread...and if there was no offense taken, I'm a little puzzled as to why it's still an issue.

and smile? I'm just talkin' back.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
70 posted 2004-03-20 06:55 PM


Too much to comment on now.

Two things:

Stephan,

Can you start another thread on the golden rule? I think it deserves its own thread.

Serenity,

quote:
I'm wondering now, if you believe in evolution? And if you do, perhaps this desire for a "mystical more" is an impetus to evolve?


The simple answer:

No.

If you say everybody has a spiritual quest, I'm going to tell you what I think:

It's a language game and nothing more.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

71 posted 2004-03-20 07:02 PM


Brad, is that "no" to both questions?

and even if it is, I'm feeling a bit misunderstood here.



I don't believe that faith has much to do with religion at all. Two of the same religion can sit side by side on the same pew and yet one of them (or both) can be faithless.

I was trying to propose the idea that it takes some kind of faith to carry on in life-- I was just wondering what flavor faith takes on in the mind of an atheist/agnostic.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
72 posted 2004-03-20 07:15 PM


Faith in what?


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

73 posted 2004-03-20 07:16 PM


Exactly!


But yes, that is what I was asking.

So you are saying that you go through life with faith in nothing?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
74 posted 2004-03-20 07:22 PM


I expect the only reason we're 'still' talking about it Blazey is because I was composing my post to Stephen whilste you snuck in and cut in line...

Close the THREAD????  Egads!  We haven't even discussed how the question puts us in the position of having to prove a negative...

"prove to the court that you don't want to commit suicide"...



And welcome ladies and gentlemen to You Beat Your Wife...  

I've understood the intent of the question all along -- I just think it is important to not miss my opportunity to be (faux) offended -- because -- really -- there's always a fine line here -- and Brad and I would certainly never say anything that might offend persons of faith... eh?  

Looking at the philology of the language we use to discuss philosophy is conducive to the process.

Personally I think it could have been easily asked as "What do Atheists do in foxholes?"

Which is much more easily answered.  


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

75 posted 2004-03-20 07:26 PM


sigh.

YES.

Had I known how to phrase it, I would have asked that, but I'm assuming Atheists do the same thing in foxholes--they hunker down, don't they? Otherwise? Why the need for a foxhole?

sheesh.

I should have just e mailed you.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
76 posted 2004-03-20 09:46 PM


Well yeah.

When a problem comes along -- we must whip it.

And you have e-mail?  

Who knew?  

All of my attempts were rubber...

I'll get onto the whole greif/loss discussion after I finish my coffee..

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

77 posted 2004-03-20 11:23 PM


"When a problem comes along -- we must whip it."



"Whip it Good." - Devo



(and sheesh. okay, okay, I'll clean out my mail-box.)


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
78 posted 2004-03-21 02:08 AM


Faith in what?


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

79 posted 2004-03-21 04:08 AM


Faith defined, as per the dictionary.com provided by this site:

faith    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

Idiom:
in faith
Indeed; truly.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman fed, from Latin fids. See bheidh- in Indo-European Roots.]

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


faith

( P )  faith: log in for this definition of faith and other entries in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members.


Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


faith

\Faith\, n. [OE. feith, fayth, fay, OF. feid, feit, fei, F. foi, fr. L. fides; akin to fidere to trust, Gr. ??????? to persuade. The ending th is perhaps due to the influence of such words as truth, health, wealth. See Bid, Bide, and cf. Confide, Defy, Fealty.] 1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.

Faith, that is, fidelity, -- the fealty of the finite will and understanding to the reason. --Coleridge.

3. (Theol.) (a) The belief in the historic truthfulness of the Scripture narrative, and the supernatural origin of its teachings, sometimes called historical and speculative faith. (b) The belief in the facts and truth of the Scriptures, with a practical love of them; especially, that confiding and affectionate belief in the person and work of Christ, which affects the character and life, and makes a man a true Christian, -- called a practical, evangelical, or saving faith.

Without faith it is impossible to please him [God]. --Heb. xi. 6.

The faith of the gospel is that emotion of the mind which is called ``trust'' or ``confidence'' exercised toward the moral character of God, and particularly of the Savior. --Dr. T. Dwight.

Faith is an affectionate, practical confidence in the testimony of God. --J. Hawes.

4. That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion; especially (Theol.), a system of religious belief of any kind; as, the Jewish or Mohammedan faith; and especially, the system of truth taught by Christ; as, the Christian faith; also, the creed or belief of a Christian society or church.

Which to believe of her, Must be a faith that reason without miracle Could never plant in me. --Shak.

Now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. --Gal. i. 23.

5. Fidelity to one's promises, or allegiance to duty, or to a person honored and beloved; loyalty.

Children in whom is no faith. --Deut. xxvii. 20.

Whose failing, while her faith to me remains, I should conceal. --Milton.

6. Word or honor pledged; promise given; fidelity; as, he violated his faith.

For you alone I broke me faith with injured Palamon. --Dryden.

7. Credibility or truth. [R.]

The faith of the foregoing narrative. --Mitford.

Act of faith. See Auto-da-f['e].

Breach of faith, Confession of faith, etc. See under Breach, Confession, etc.

Faith cure, a method or practice of treating diseases by prayer and the exercise of faith in God.

In good faith, with perfect sincerity.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


faith

\Faith\, interj. By my faith; in truth; verily.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


faith

n 1: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality" [syn: religion, religious belief] 2: complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust" [syn: trust] 3: institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him" [syn: religion] 4: loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors"


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


faith, NC (town, FIPS 22600)
  Location: 35.58806 N, 80.46123 W
  Population (1990): 553 (234 housing units)
  Area: 1.9 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water)
faith, SD (city, FIPS 20980)
  Location: 45.02588 N, 102.03643 W
  Population (1990): 548 (249 housing units)
  Area: 3.2 sq km (land), 0.0 sq km (water)
  Zip code(s): 57626
Source: U.S. Gazetteer, U.S. Census Bureau


faith

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true
(Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and
therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of
faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result
of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith,
and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3).
Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it
assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the
understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate
ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God.
Historical faith is the apprehension of and assent to certain statements which
are regarded as mere facts of history. Temporary faith is that state of mind
which is awakened in men (e.g., Felix) by the exhibition of the truth and by
the influence of religious sympathy, or by what is sometimes styled the common
operation of the Holy Spirit. Saving faith is so called because it has eternal
life inseparably connected with it. It cannot be better defined than in the
words of the Assembly's Shorter Catechism: "Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving
grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is
offered to us in the gospel." The object of saving faith is the whole revealed
Word of God. Faith accepts and believes it as the very truth most sure. But the
special act of faith which unites to Christ has as its object the person and
the work of the Lord Jesus Christ (John 7:38; Acts 16:31). This is the specific
act of faith by which a sinner is justified before God (Rom. 3:22, 25; Gal.
2:16; Phil. 3:9; John 3:16-36; Acts 10:43; 16:31). In this act of faith the
believer appropriates and rests on Christ alone as Mediator in all his offices.
This assent to or belief in the truth received upon the divine testimony has
always associated with it a deep sense of sin, a distinct view of Christ, a
consenting will, and a loving heart, together with a reliance on, a trusting
in, or resting in Christ. It is that state of mind in which a poor sinner,
conscious of his sin, flees from his guilty self to Christ his Saviour, and
rolls over the burden of all his sins on him. It consists chiefly, not in the
assent given to the testimony of God in his Word, but in embracing with
fiducial reliance and trust the one and only Saviour whom God reveals. This
trust and reliance is of the essence of faith. By faith the believer directly
and immediately appropriates Christ as his own. Faith in its direct act makes
Christ ours. It is not a work which God graciously accepts instead of perfect
obedience, but is only the hand by which we take hold of the person and work of
our Redeemer as the only ground of our salvation. Saving faith is a moral act,
as it proceeds from a renewed will, and a renewed will is necessary to
believing assent to the truth of God (1 Cor. 2:14; 2 Cor. 4:4). Faith,
therefore, has its seat in the moral part of our nature fully as much as in the
intellectual. The mind must first be enlightened by divine teaching (John 6:44;
Acts 13:48; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 1:17, 18) before it can discern the things of the
Spirit. Faith is necessary to our salvation (Mark 16:16), not because there is
any merit in it, but simply because it is the sinner's taking the place
assigned him by God, his falling in with what God is doing. The warrant or
ground of faith is the divine testimony, not the reasonableness of what God
says, but the simple fact that he says it. Faith rests immediately on, "Thus
saith the Lord." But in order to this faith the veracity, sincerity, and truth
of God must be owned and appreciated, together with his unchangeableness. God's
word encourages and emboldens the sinner personally to transact with Christ as
God's gift, to close with him, embrace him, give himself to Christ, and take
Christ as his. That word comes with power, for it is the word of God who has
revealed himself in his works, and especially in the cross. God is to be
believed for his word's sake, but also for his name's sake. Faith in Christ
secures for the believer freedom from condemnation, or justification before
God; a participation in the life that is in Christ, the divine life (John
14:19; Rom. 6:4-10; Eph. 4:15,16, etc.); "peace with God" (Rom. 5:1); and
sanctification (Acts 26:18; Gal. 5:6; Acts 15:9). All who thus believe in
Christ will certainly be saved (John 6:37, 40; 10:27, 28; Rom. 8:1). The
faith=the gospel (Acts 6:7; Rom. 1:5; Gal. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:9; Jude 1:3).


Um, you mean there's NOTHING up there you agree with or utilize in your life? This is what I'm asking.


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
80 posted 2004-03-21 04:17 AM


Still, no answer. Faith in what?

Make a decision.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

81 posted 2004-03-21 04:22 AM


My friend Brad, I believe I asked you if it is true, that you, as an atheist, have faith in nothing?


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
82 posted 2004-03-21 04:53 AM


Serenity (Karen),
I'm sorry. You have't answered the question.  As an atheist (me), you must answer the question. What do you mean by faith?

I do not need you're necessity. I am not interested in spituality. I love mythology and religion.

Here's the deal: I like religion, I have no interest in anything spiritual.

Okay, I've said it twice.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

83 posted 2004-03-21 05:13 AM


Okay.

Then let me try to understand this.

A guy named Brad, believes in Brad.

That's it?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
84 posted 2004-03-21 06:04 AM


No, you don't get it yet. How hard is it? I DONT BELIEVE IN SPIRITUAL BALONEY.

I believe in you and Stephan, and Jim, TREVOR, Stephen, Ron, Nancy, and anybody else.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

85 posted 2004-03-21 06:32 AM


I'm disappointed.

You're better than this.

And you certainly deserve to add your own name to the list.

I think so anyway.

(WTF???)

okay. I'll let you be. My apologies for the annoyance.

[This message has been edited by serenity blaze (03-21-2004 07:26 AM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
86 posted 2004-03-21 09:28 AM


It all depends on the definition of spirituality Brad.  You probably use terms like 'sunrise' and 'sunset', 'visceral' and 'cereberal' -- even though we know them to be inaccurate descriptions of reality.

Some different ways to look at spirituality:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrainqa.shtml
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/470Mystical.html#Epilepsy,%20the%20Limbic%20System%20and%20Mysticism
http://www.science-spirit.org/articles/Articledetail.cfm?article_ID=130
http://www.american-buddha.com/religion.begley.htm


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
87 posted 2004-03-21 09:38 AM


Oh yeah... and our cousins have the exact same limbic system.
http://www.cwu.edu/%7Ecwuchci/

vlraynes
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229
Somewhere... out there...
88 posted 2004-03-21 09:44 AM



Hmm...I've been quietly following this thread, as I often do in this forum...  I've never spoken up in here before, because, quite frankly?... you guys scare me...*grin*... but?...I hope no one minds me jumping in this time... because I'm finally feeling compelled to be a bit less than quiet...

I have to admit that I'm a bit confused, though...

Brad?...
Help me understand please?... Why must the question of faith keep leading back to religion and/or spirituality?  In my understanding, the presence of faith is not necessarily dependent upon a 'religious' or 'spiritual' commitment...

Isn't faith simply 'belief'?... in something... ANYTHING?  I guess I'm not understanding why it's such a difficult question...

And?...if there is no faith... no belief?..then why bother?  What's the point?  What is there to look forward too?  

Without 'faith', how can there be 'hope'?...and without hope?...why am I here?

I know that much, if not all, of what I'm saying has already been said...but I sincerely want to know...and if I'm missing the point of the thread, I apologize to all concerned... but if someone could help me understand what is being said here... or, more specifically, what is going unsaid, I would truly appreciate it...

vlraynes
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229
Somewhere... out there...
89 posted 2004-03-21 09:52 AM



And now?...hoping I made at least a little bit of sense up there...
I really shouldn't try to think when I haven't slept...

Oh well... going to go try the sleeping thing now...

'night...er...morning, all...

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
90 posted 2004-03-21 01:10 PM


A primer before discussion -- at least one of these interviews;

This is a discussion of the difference between 'optimism' and 'hope'.  It goes through the science of hope and the actual physiological changes in the body when hope is present. Dr. Jerome Groopman, of Harvard Medical School, draws the distinction that optimism is looking through rose colored glasses and that hope recognizes the obstacles of life but envisions a realistic path to a better future.

He points out that when there is hope the first response in the brain is an actual release of powerful endorphins that relieve pain and facilitate healing.

Anatomy of Hope
the book http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl/0-375-50638-1.html


best interview -- this is from WAMU's Diane Rehm -- I know Brad finds her voice irritating but she has a disorder called spasmodic dysphonia that paralyzes the vocal chords http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/features/daily/rehm0823.htm and is remarkable in her work. http://www.wamu.org/dr/2004/drarc_040223.html#Monday
direct audio http://www.wamu.org/ram/2004/r2040223.ram

good interview with Terry Gross of NPR's Fresh Air http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1638913

short interview with All Things Considered's Robert Seigel http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1618292


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
91 posted 2004-03-21 03:40 PM


quote:
And?...if there is no faith... no belief?..then why bother?  What's the point?  What is there to look forward too?


Wrong questions. How many angels can stand on a pin? Does that have an answer?

So far, the only person who has grasped what I'm saying is Denise. I talked about the nearby universe, she talked about the ocean, I mentioned my daughter.

Everything else, I think, is/are confusing tools for talismen.  

vlraynes
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229
Somewhere... out there...
92 posted 2004-03-21 04:14 PM



Okay, Brad... then help me grasp it...

If you believe my questions to be so 'wrong' then please tell me... What are the 'right' questions?

What questions do I have to ask for them to be deserving of a substantial answer?  

I'm no scholar and I don't claim to have all the answers...  I'm trying to learn here...

And Reb?...thank you... I'll do my 'homework' and will be back later...

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
93 posted 2004-03-21 04:51 PM


You asked, "Why bother if there is no faith?"

It's either a tautology, to have faith is to bother, or you're asking, er, forcing me, to concede something that I don't believe in -- the mystical more. You can get away with that because the question itself can shift between the tautology and the answer you're looking for.

That's why it's wrong to ask.

A common atheist response to the question is, "Do you mean to say that you don't really want to bother?"
  

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
94 posted 2004-03-21 05:08 PM


LR,

I listened to that last interview. It's a good thing not to worship the volcano god of pain.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
95 posted 2004-03-21 09:33 PM


Okay, I'm brooding now. Let me try this one more time:

In Neo-Confucian class, a long time ago, I remember the story of a master and his disciple (Can't remember the names right now, down right embarrassing because these guys were pretty important.) The Master said that all the answers of the universe could be found in a single blade of grass. The disciple, accordingly, sat down in front of a blade of grass and stared.

And stared.

And stared.

And stared.

Anyways, after several days of this and suffering from sleep deprivation and hunger, he concluded that the master was wrong. All the answers of the universe could not be gleaned from a single blade of grass.

Not one.

I remember laughing at this story and thinking, well, duh.

And yet what if the master was right but misinterpreted? There is no mysticism here, no supernatural secret to be revealed, only that the answers were not the ones that satisfied the disciple. And what if this misinterpretation, in fact, hindered his view of that blade of grass? He stared for many days but never actually saw the blade of grass. He never saw it because he was looking for something else.

In other words, the master saw a poem, the disciple was looking for a biological/philosophical/theological dissertation.


serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

96 posted 2004-03-21 11:17 PM


I'm sorry Brad. I kinda have a knack for driving teachers nuts.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
97 posted 2004-03-21 11:36 PM


Far too many have sacrificed themselves there Brad.

I was beginning to wonder how long it was going to take you...  

But you have to be patient -- it's like I said on that other thread -- Religion is like an operating system.  It's their paradigm.  The only way they can interpret the universe.  The whole language is built around it.

vlraynes
Member Rara Avis
since 2000-07-25
Posts 8229
Somewhere... out there...
98 posted 2004-03-22 01:33 AM



Thank you, Brad... that helps...

I took the time, tonight, to start at the beginning and re-read this thread, and I think I'm a little closer to understanding where you're coming from.  I'm still not sure that I understand how it's 'enough'... but at least I'm beginning to grasp what you've been saying.

Anyway... I'm going to sleep on it, and I'll be back when my mind is rested.

And, Reb?... I haven't forgotten about my 'homework'.  I'll check out those interviews tomorrow.

'Night all...

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
99 posted 2004-03-22 09:44 AM


I have been told (by Berengar no less) that what I think is a little difficult to understand.

I am sorry for being frustrated and frustrating here. I am sorry that I pushed things. I will try again. If anybody's interested?

Fundamentally, I don't see the world the way you do.

I suppose that was obvious.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
100 posted 2004-03-22 01:41 PM


A wolf shall eat the moon and sun
before these tribes again are one.



jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
101 posted 2004-03-22 06:44 PM


Brad:

In a nutshell, you don't have any interest in spending your time seeking ineffable "spiritual" experiences.  To that extent, I think you and I are on the same page.  But who ever said experience had to be preeminent in the worship of God?

Jim

P.S. How can you say you believe in Trevor AND maintain you're an atheist?  Hasn't Trevor made claims to deity in the past?  

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
102 posted 2004-03-22 07:33 PM


Well Vicky -- Karen wanted to know what's in my lunchbox... I eat heavy...

There may be yet more homework as well...

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
103 posted 2004-03-22 07:37 PM


Jim,

Uh, yeah.

Like many of my friends, you have the irritating tendency of pointing out my inconsistencies.

But when have I ever claimed to be consistent?


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

104 posted 2004-03-22 08:50 PM


Brad, I guess people of faith have had some sort of faith or a faith mindset for as long as they can remember, and maybe it's just a little hard to think outside the box?

I guess I sort of compare someone trying to get inside another's head with the situation that I face when I get asked all the time, "What's it like to be a twin, how does if feel?" Well, I really don't know how it feels, as compared to what? That's all I've ever known, and I have nothing else to compare it with. I guess if there were ever a time where I was not a twin I could make some sort of comparison.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
105 posted 2004-03-22 09:54 PM


That's a pretty good example. But what does it really feel like to be a twin?

What exactly is being asked here? If there were a time when you weren't a twin, would you then be a twin at all?  Say, a clone? Or, do they mean something along the lines of twins, unknowingly, separated at birth and later reunited? The former question is at odds with what being a twin is and the latter doesn't really answer the question as you really were a twin, you just didn't know it.

What would it be like to be a different 'I'?

Say, for example, if you used the word 'watashi' instead of 'I'?

For many people, people who believe in the 'apple' view of things, I suspect that, while the superficial things in life (language, culture, political viewpoints, religion as opposed to spirit etc.), they would still be the same person. They believe in a core.

Or perhaps not, perhaps they haven't really considered it in this way before?

I don't, I'm an 'onion' guy. Tear away the layers and there ain't nothin' there.

For some, that might seem a profoundly frightening way to look at things, but it follows from asking and trying to answer your 'twin' question.

And it's not frightening once you realize that it's a metaphor, another way of saying that the difference, our unique value as human individuals, is in the details.

  

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
106 posted 2004-03-22 10:10 PM


Stephen-

'But it's not always that simple is it?  ... Sometimes things suck for others but not for me.  Sometimes the disadvantage of others works to my advantage.  Sometimes I can do wrong things which others aren't even aware of.  It can then be reasoned that without their knowing it can't really harm them.  So unless there's an ethic which tells me that certain actions are wrong regardless of percieved benefit, the golden rule doesn't really have a base.  


I understand it (the golden rule) can be followed because it appears self evident ... and without much questioning at all.  But I think it's prevalence in moral thought is evidence that we have a standard of morality over and above us.  Something we can obey or violate in priciple every day.'

Good point. And I haven't ruled that out as a possibility. in fact, I said:

'I don't have trouble believing that. And the simple fact that God would allow him/herself to work through poeple who not only don't believe in Christ as the one true savior, but even through people who don't even believe God exists, says to me that there is more than just the one way to God, and more than just the one way to salvation.'

I guess, to me, I feel a guiding force, a moral system. When I think something is wrong to do, I feel it in my gut... like an instinct, or a reflex.

I'll be honest here... I dinged someone's car a couple weeks ago, without leaving them a note with my insurance information. Just drove right on off, because I knew there was no way I could afford to fix the car, or pay the ticket the necessary police report would ineitably lead to. So I left it.... selfishly, and wrongly, and I felt pretty bad at the time, and I feel ashamed to admit it here. And I guess you could say that it sucked for the other person and not for me-- at least, my actions would make it seem so-- but I still feel bad about it. And I know that feeling bad won't fix the ding...

So you're right, Stephen, it's not always that simple, and it can be beneficial to be 'bad.' But I don't think most people really just think "I'm going to do something bad!" Stuff happens, and we rationalize, and we may or may not be guilty about it later... but I didn't hit the car on purpose.

'You should probably stop short of saying "wrong" and settle for something like "disagreeable".  Because I wonder if you consider certain actions as really "wrong" or merely as things you happen to think are wrong?  Is it a violation of an overarching moral principle, or just a violation of your subjective sensibilities?  This might contribute to your hesitation at calling anything sin.'

When I say something is wrong, I mean that it is a violation of a universal principle. I damaged someone's property, and then I flew the coop. That wasn't just disagreeable... any way you cut it, I don't think you can look at that situation and say, "You know, Amy really did the right thing!" It is clear what the correct course of action would have been... I just didn't take it.

If I think something is merely disagreeable, however, I simply say I don't agree with it. For example, I don't necessarily agree with your religious faith, values, and practice (at least in the sense that I don't also believe in Christ as my savior, et al.) however, I in no way think it's wrong, or even foolish of you to believe what you believe. I have a friend who thinks that any logically-minded person will come to the conclusion that there is no God, religion is a fairy tell, and so on. I diagree with him strongly (as an agnostic, I find myself in the unique position of having the ability to argue religion with anyone, including atheists ) and tell him so... but if believing that everyone who doesn't believe as he does is foolish gets him through the night... well... more power to him.

I'd have been smarter to use an example of action rather than belief, but, well, I'm tired, and I'm sure you'll get the gist.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648

107 posted 2004-03-23 07:18 PM


Brad, what's it feel like to be an onion guy?


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
108 posted 2004-03-24 12:25 PM


Powers and weights, densities and amounts
all are the core, all are the perfect cause
compounded any way - everything counts
and is a maker and breaker of laws.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
109 posted 2004-03-24 06:53 PM


Oniony
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
110 posted 2004-03-25 05:07 PM


I've been trying to figure out where to go next here, but keep thinking that maybe a lot of these ideas deserve their own thread. I've started reading Lewis's Mere Christianity so I wonder if that might be a useful contrast. Nevertheless, I've stumbled across two quotes at the beginning of Putnam's Realism with a Human Face that sum up what I've been trying to say here:

quote:
Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves like locked rooms and like books that are written in a very foreign tongue . . . Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.


--Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet

and

quote:
Let us be human.


--Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value


hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
111 posted 2004-03-27 11:37 AM


Brad- that first quote is exactly the philosophy I try to take.

Isn't there a danger in answering the questions? What if you've answered the wrong ones, or answered too quickly, or incorrectly?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
112 posted 2004-03-27 04:26 PM


I think so.

Or perhaps the answers are all around us but we're so inundated with them, we no longer see them. Similar, perhaps, to the Rainier quote, I read a book in Korean. It ended with an extremely powerful statement on the importance of liberalism in Western culture. Translated though, it simply doesn't have the same power as it does in Korean: "They fought, sweated, and shed their blood for these freedoms for hundreds of years."

Sometimes, its looking at the same answer in a different way.

And sometimes:

Dennett (again):

quote:
There was once a chap who wanted to know the meaning of life, so he walked a thousand miles and climbed to the high mountaintop where the wise guru lived. "Will you tell me the meaning of life?" he asked.

"Certainly," replied the guru, "but if you want to understand my answer, you must first master resursive function theory and mathematical logic."

"You're kidding."

"No, really."

"Well then . . . skip it."

"Suit yourself."



serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

113 posted 2004-03-27 04:46 PM


resursive function theory and mathematical logic?



But actually, I'm just feeling sorry for the poor soul who would agree to try to teach me that.



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
114 posted 2004-03-27 04:51 PM


Serenity,

Here's a truism that I constantly tell my students:

"I don't teach, you learn."

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

115 posted 2004-03-27 04:54 PM


Fair and true enough, Brad.

thanks for understanding

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
116 posted 2004-03-31 01:02 AM


Brad,

quote:
Let us be human.



What if there's a real difference between merely human, and fully human? ... and a real responsibility that comes with being "human"?


Since you mentioned Lewis, I'd like to quote him.


quote:
"It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary, decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad."

Mere Christianity



Stephen.

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
117 posted 2004-03-31 03:01 AM


But Stephen-

we're not all Christian birds. You and I come from different eggs... we are incubated differently, our nests are lined with different materials, we will hatch at different times and... you know, the flight pattern of a flock of geese is different than that of a sparrow, which is different than than of a bird of prey...

Wouldn't the world be boring if the only birds were chickens, or robins?

BTW, I love the metaphor.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
118 posted 2004-03-31 01:26 PM


Sunny side up please
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
119 posted 2004-03-31 07:08 PM


Ah, so that's why it's so difficult to talk to religious folk. They don't see the world, they see the inside of a shell.

Start to break it down.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

120 posted 2004-03-31 07:22 PM


Smiling.

I was just talking to a friend about this thread, and how it left me feeling a bit bemused.

Y'see? Having Pagan tendencies, I have often found myself at the brunt of my own question(s).

shaking my head here...

I think I just interrogated myself.

*chuckles and hugs*

especially to Brad. Yer alright.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
121 posted 2004-03-31 09:32 PM


Yogi Berra was right.  You can observe a lot just by watching.  
inkedgoddess
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-19
Posts 7392
Ohio
122 posted 2004-05-18 10:38 PM


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
sorry i mean no disrespect; just wandered in here and couldnt find my way out...but it did get me sleepy enuf for some shut eye

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
123 posted 2004-05-19 12:04 PM


Sweet dreams
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

124 posted 2004-05-19 12:07 PM


I seem to be putting everybody but me to sleep these days...

write me a dream, lady.

Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 1999-07-29
Posts 5622
Ala bam a
125 posted 2004-05-19 10:45 AM


            MULL EPISCOPAL CHOICE
                  (MARK 1)

_God is love.

_God is thought.

_God is God.

_God is paught.

_God is faith.

_God is you.

_God is all.

_God is blue.

_None of Thee above.

wranx
Member Elite
since 2002-06-07
Posts 3689
Moved from a shack to a barn
126 posted 2004-06-13 12:48 PM


Well, Karenity? Now you have me wondering about the Homotheists and the Transtheists, and how they might be coping...

Ok, I'll go away now...

*grin*

Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
127 posted 2004-06-13 05:01 AM


I came in the wrong door as well but enjoyed the wisdom in this room.  Some of us live solely by something very small and it seems to work well, called "The Golden Rule." No expectations, no limitations, and simply trying to be the best human you can be, and learning by your actions as you go.  By doing to others as you would like to be treated yourself it simplifies things to me.  In other words, if it feels good I do it, if not, I don't, and the work is living with the decision I made. Too simple right?  Seems to work as an unencumbered way of life for me anyway.  I guess I am a hard agnostic if anything I suppose, never really thought of a name for me before.  I don't depend on the hereafter, but instead put all my energy into the here and now.  I do respect others with faith, and get something from them all to enrich my life, but I use it in the here and now, does that make any sense? I often say, "God Bless You," as they believe he will, not me.  Okay, off to bed, I am "tard".
wings of the moon
Member
since 2003-03-27
Posts 323
Pink bubblegum land
128 posted 2004-06-19 04:33 AM


Ah mysteria, so you're basically doing virtue ethics? the ethical theory based on aristotle? that's interesting.
Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » calling all atheists?

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary