Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 14. (Read 38463 times)

The flood was with Noah.  Is it wrong for God to judge us when we disobey?  How bad was the world that he decided to have a world-wide flood to destroy it?  Perhaps we do not have any idea how far humanity had degenerated to at that time.  I do know it grieved Him to flood the world though but I imagine a cruel and evil world where there was human sacrificing, raping of women, brutal murders and so on.  The groups of people that were "judged" or God allowed to be killed by war or by His hand were non-repentant and often involved in very evil practices such as child/human sacrifices in the Old Testament. 

As for you question "Who forgives God his sins?" God has no sin.  We can question His decisions but we are not omniscient and we do not know all things like He does.  The one thing I do know is that I do not want to get on His "bad side" though! What shocks me is that people have no regard for Him but the Bible predicts this too.  It says that the the last days "will be just like the time of Noah—everyone carrying on as usual, having a good time right up to the day Noah boarded the ship. They suspected nothing until the flood hit and swept everything away."  Who fears and respects God anymore?  God is loving and kind and wants all of us to repent but He is also not to be trifled with and if we do not repent He will judge us.

And what about the flood with Moses to take one arbitrary example?  Is that not mass murder and genocide?  Who forgives God his sins?  

1)  Basically, yes.  The nature of the self is what underlies our practical conception of it, and this includes its relationships with other, stratified selves and the 'network' of non-stratified, global consciousness.  The stratified "selves" occupy various swathes of spacetime.  You would be one of those 'selves' at this moment, and another 'self' at this moment, and another at this moment, and another at...you get the idea.

2)  I think so too.

3)  Not at all.  I've said many times on this forum "ratio is the root word of rationale" and it applies here as well.  More perspective gives you better information and knowledge, but it's important that this 'truth of knowledge' so to speak is distributed to...well...multiple perspectives.  For example, in trying to describe reality, you could look at a set of empirical data and formulate a series of valid hypotheses about it.  These valid hypotheses will give you more perspective into your data than if you had only one valid hypothesis.  However, there are other ways to hypothesize and theorize about reality that aren't empirical but are completely valid.  Knowledge of this 'ratio' of valid approaches gives you perspective into the limitations of each one.  After exploring discipline after discipline for valid approaches to valid hypotheses and theories about reality, you might come to the conclusion that in order to minimize the overextension of concepts that occurs when arguing against one discipline while taking stakehold in another, you not only need to speak from the 'discpline of all discplines' (as it turns out, this is language itself, and philosophy is its closest academic relative), but you need to talk about it in a language whose rules supersede those of all other languages, or in what Christopher Langan calls a 'metalanguage.'

4) I overextend concepts like crazy, but less so when I stay particularly mindful about my language, such as in these conversations.  Invariably, it still happens quite often, mostly because I'm still refining my ideas (it's taken me about 12 years to get this far; literally thousands of hours of researching, hypothesizing, mathematical modeling, analysis, and meditation), because it's habit, and because I haven't completely mapped the boundary between 'typical' language and the metalanguage.

Are you talking about the fundamental nature or essence of ones self? e.g I felt it was wrong in the core of my being?


To my mind the absolute truth 'I think therefore I am' is easier to arrive at than the disciplined truths of thinking from a neurological perspective.


Are you suggesting that looking at things from a different perspective will blind you to the truth? I would suggest the opposite is true.


And your theories are impervious to this I suppose?

To believe in god is to believe in consciousness.  You are conscious, right?

The "being" is with you always, and if you quiet your mind down you'll experience it more fully.  It's non-empirical because it isn't anything you observe, and to that extent it isn't a thing.

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult than placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of a specific discipline.  For example, we might see a white guy rob a black guy on the street and a social worker may explain it in the context of "oppression" or "social injustice" while a neuroscientist might explain it in the context of "neurochemicals and electrical signals."  The problem with this is that all of a sudden you have concepts being overextended and being applied to things where they have no business being applied to (e.g. I'm dating my girlfriend because of "neurochemicals and electrical signals"...or maybe it's because I just fucking want to).  People get away with being careless when theorizing from these disciplines specifically because the overextension of these concepts often goes ignored, undetected, or unchallenged.

You said, instead of focusing on arbitrary phenomena, we should focus instead on the ever-present 'being' of existence. But what is the ever-present 'being' of existence and how is it distinct from any other arbitrary phenomena?


Yes, this is obvious. If all phenomena had only one possible explanation then there would be no need for science.


Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult than what? What are you comparing this too?

I didn't say that there are only two "things" in the Universe, I'm saying that when it comes to isolated, conditional phenomena, that phenomena is arbitrary to the extent that there are many, perhaps even an infinite number of possible and valid explanations for that phenomena depending upon the context you place it in.

Placing arbitrary phenomena in the context of absolute truth is more difficult, but it's fun because that's when you get to resolve paradoxes.

So the universe only consists of two things, the ever-present 'being' of existence and arbitrary phenomena?

While I agree the universe is full of arbitrary phenomena, I have no idea what the ever-present 'being' of existence is, and so can't comment on it.

To take the middle ground, I think it's important to recognize both perspectives.

Is there "arbitrary phenomena"?  Yes.  What happens when people study isolated, arbitrary phenomena?  You get arguments for and arguments against some position.

Is there some absolute truth that supersedes arbitrary phenomena?  Yes.

Is there something we can lean from this?  Yes.  Definitely.  And it can lend itself to utility. 

Personally, I treat arbitrary phenomena practically.  I use inference as anyone else to make decisions on the fly and to navigate the world.

But when I get home, I reflect upon everything.  In recognizing isolated phenomena as arbitrary, it simply makes it easier to go with the flow of things, to enjoy the uncertainty and unpredictability in life, and to remember that if I'm having a shitty day, it was only due to some arbitrary phenomena that has come and gone, or will go.  But, I also remember that there is an absolute truth that is anything but arbitrary, and this is where I build my foundation.  If I build my foundation upon conditional phenomena, then that foundation is going to be weak because it too will be conditional.  If I build my foundation upon absolute truth, then I will be stronger, tougher, and more capable of dealing with the bullshit that comes and goes in life.

There is benefit in recognizing that, as dank said, things just "are" is that, if you recognize this enough, you will become much more relaxed and comfortable and satisfied with life. 

Ever sit in a room without a friend or family member to talk to?  Without radio, without tv, without the Internet, without a book, without food or water...without any distraction at all.  What happens?  Well, you probably start to get fidgety and bored and you wish you had some distraction nearby to remove the monotony.

But...wtf?  Why is virtually every person a walking ADD case without distractions?  Why can't the vast majority of people just be with themselves and be content with that? 
Well, if your focus is on arbitrary, conditional phenomena and you think that's all reality has to offer, then it makes sense that you would seek comfort through distraction.

On the other hand, if you shift your focus to the ever-present 'being' of existence, then you can become content and satisfied simply 'being'.  The utility this provides is limitless.

Yes, but when are you going to stop asking why and start affirming some beliefs?

I am assuming you are referring to things in the Old Testament such as polygamy, animal sacrifice, war and such?  Just because the Bible give a historical account of what people did does not condone what they did. 

I read the words of Jesus and try to follow them.  I can understand God's relationship with man based on the stories in the Old Testament as well.  But I won't pick and choose the parts I don't like.  In understanding other cultures I can get a glimpse into why things were allowed (polygamy because so many men were killed in war at that time).  Jesus was our ultimate sacrifice for our sins so the animal sacrifices are not necessary anymore thankfully!

So, what you're saying is, the act of loving, caring, and taking care of someone, even at expense to yourself, is maifested in breaking physics and levitating? To love is to be able to fly? I'm going to take a really crazy guess here: you're single, right?



That is the most worthless, useless, and lazy conclusion in the world, ever, and is no better than the answer "God did it." Lazy stupid idiots say "It is what it is" or "God did it" and end it at that. People who actually like to use their heads don't stop at what it is, they ask WHY it is.

If we can all agree that what is is still present, then we can find that our beliefs are not quite so different from one another, they simply are from different perspectives, there's many languages to describe the universe.  All perspectives converge in the occurrence of singularity or death.

Universal truth - everything just is.  You can describe it from the left perspective or the right, but what your describing still just is.

Those would be people with conflicting religions, not atheists.


No, it's for the same reason so many Christians and preachers hate atheists: they are afraid someone else's ideas will interfere with their own brand of crazy. Islamists don't want to lose people to Christianity, Christians don't want to lose people to Islam, and no one wants people to think for themselves and start to question their authority and power.


Obviously not. Your belief and obsession with them cuts you to the heart, not the words, they have no effect on me whatsoever, and annoy and confuse some others who believe different words.


A fallacy you and many other Christians keep repeating. There is no choice in belief. You either believe, or you don't. One can't simply decide to start to believe in something. At least not if they are sane. People can't just choose to believe in your gods any more than you can just choose to believe in teapots orbiting the sun, or in fairies, or in the Sun God Ra. You can choose to delude yourself, or choose to pretend to believe, but belief requires conviction (brainwashing) and/or evidence, not just will.


I'm fairly sure you don't follow everything the bible tells you to do either, otherwise you'd be posting this from the inside of a jail cell. But, luckily for you, preachers and religious scholars have reinterpreted many parts of the bible to conform more closely to the culture of the times 

"If you warn them and they refuse to repent and keep on sinning, they will die in their sins. But you will have saved yourself because you obeyed me"

This is true though, it means if you don't forgive yourself of past negativity you may die in fear.  Death is all about being at peace so you ascend upwards in consciousness.

The reason I like to use Bible quotes in topics like this is because regardless of what people think about it, there is truth in it.  Many people hate the Bible with great passion.  Why is the book banned in some countries?  It is because it is powerful.  The words are God inspired and they cut to the heart like a sword piercing the soul.  The Bible is convicting.  You can call it whatever you want.  You have the choice to disregard it.  But verses like Ezekiel 3:19 "If you warn them and they refuse to repent and keep on sinning, they will die in their sins. But you will have saved yourself because you obeyed me" will not be well received.

As for underlining stuff we like and crossing out what we do not like, I agree that many Christians do that and it is a VERY dangerous thing to do.  They will probably be the ones that get to heaven, like the Bible says, and they say, "Lord I did these things in your name" to which He will reply, "Depart from me.  I never knew you."

That is why I try my best to read the entire Bible and instead of reading into it what I want to say, I use exegesis and read it for what it really does say.  It does not make me popular in some Christian circles though because the Bible is really clear on many things some of which is not politically correct nowadays.

But I am not sure why I am casting my pearls out here.

Wrong-o, and I suspect the reason why you believe it's wrong is because you see what idiots often do with a religious text.

It's been suggested by people such as Sam Harris that the problem with religious moderates is that they provide an umbrella of cover for often destructive, religious fundamentalists.

I'd like to add that the problem with religious fundamentalists is that they provide no umbrella to those who actually understand and can provide a logical basis for theism.  The problem is that reality is stranger than fiction, and so any truthful statements made about the metaphysical nature of reality are often perceived as related to religious fundamentalism (i.e. these types of assertions are seen as 'new age,' 'trendy,' or some other catch word with a negative connotation) and get cast by the wayside.

And look what this thread has turned into.

Gotta love the bible quotes. It feels like in US everyone takes his bible, underlines stuff he likes, and crosses what he does not like. Looks like a coloring book in the end. Even if someone believes that god exists (which is false ), believing in the old ass book, written by "who knows?" and "for whatever purpose" which in fact is just a fiction. We could as well turn to Greek mythology text or Egyptian glyphs. And when someone starts to chew on bible text, trying to attack or defend some points, it feels like special Olympics.