136 replies to this topic

[Masamune]

There's thousands of McDonalds in the country, but not all of them have the same menu. Does that mean there is no McDonalds franchise?

[SOAP]

But then you have to separate the term for people who just believe in God and Jesus, and that he died and rose again. You need to come up with another name. Hence the relatively new "Jesus follower" term has come into existence. I'm going from my marketing background, but it seems little more than a re branded way for young people to try to separate themselves from those older than them and validate what they believe. It has its own cool image.

So we have this problem. What do people who want to separate themselves from what the Fred Phelps crew think, but also keep their dignity and not rebrand themselves as a different kind of post modernist, call themselves, yet still believe in Jesus and God, and the general Christian beliefs?

Hmmm. How about, gee I don't know. Human beings? I don't see why people need to label their beliefs. It just ends up hindering the natural fluid evolution of beliefs and it's just another artificial way to divide people. And there will alwasy be Fred Phelps emerging in your midsts no matter how many times you relabel your beliefs. It's kinda why I try to saty away from calling myself atheist and only so to for simplicity's sake. If I really had to lable myself it'd be some complicated like existentialistic discordian secular humanitarian. And even that doesn't quite cover all the bases of my beliefs. Your beliefs are your own. They might have some in common with others with those who might call themselves Christians or Jesus Lovers or just plain Spiritualists but these are all just labels. But you also share things in common with Muslims, Jews, pagans, ect that go beyond Christianity which goes to show how much such a label is worth. I hate labels because it makes it harder and harder to recognize that sameness we all share as human beings.

You can read Surah al-Hujurat 49:13 of the Muslim Quran (You should be able to easily Google it.) and tell me if that's something you would agree or disagree with, especailly given the context of what I said above.

[Reflectionist]

There's thousands of McDonalds in the country, but not all of them have the same menu. Does that mean there is no McDonalds franchise?

A McDonald's is a McDonald's. You don't see on McDonald's saying that the McDonald's down the street with a different menu isn't a real McDonald's. Is there a place where you can't really tell what's a McDonald's and what's a Wendy's? Or something to that effect? The metaphor breaks down because Christianity is inherently vague as a default, much less BEFORE we get into doctrinal differences.

Though to your credit here with the McDonalds = Christianity thing... the first McDonalds was a LOT different, and far more sincere and healthy, than the McDonald's we have today.

[wisp]

Doesn't the Nicene Creed only apply to Catholics (and Anglicans/Episcopalians/other very similar denominations)? I could be wrong but I don't think all protestants use the creed.

Also, the text on the last page is a little different from the Nicene Creed that I grew up hearing. Whose version is that?

[Kascade]

What repels me is a combination of the people I was around, and the general attitude of faith in itself. When I grew up the church my parents sent me to had the doctrine of Jesus + faith gets you into heaven, and not believing in him sends you other places. The church I had to go to was sort of a catalyst that sent me back to rethink everything I was taught. It would've happened regardless however. There is just too many gray areas of faith, people declare somethings a sin without defining what a sin is, or even if they know a definition for it. I've honestly written off most of religion as an old device for teaching morals, but still leaves the use of these morals up to the wielder.
However, to say "This is everything, the answer, the creation, and our end." I wouldn't be ready to believe a book that said "I'm the answer to all your questions" if it was written today by top scientists, let alone in the bronze age by a group of people.
In the recent past, and one person on this forum could back me up on this (An hour of a brick wall talking to me, instead of the other way around), someone attempted to talk to me about creation. About the flaws of the big bang theory, etc (eye on the word Theory).
His reasoning:
The universe just can't exist, it had to be created from something. So god, who was always around and couldn't be created, created the universe!
So what he tells me is that an object that can't have always existed had to be created by another object who could not be created but always existed.
But his wasn't a theory, it was a faith. So it was perfectly understandable to him, and must assume there isn't another solution to keep it as a faith.

We don't build our houses, planes, or nuclear defense projects on faith. And my car runs on something a bit more tangible than hopeful wishes.

There's thousands of McDonalds in the country, but not all of them have the same menu. Does that mean there is no McDonalds franchise?

A McDonald's is a McDonald's. You don't see on McDonald's saying that the McDonald's down the street with a different menu isn't a real McDonald's. Is there a place where you can't really tell what's a McDonald's and what's a Wendy's? Or something to that effect? The metaphor breaks down because Christianity is inherently vague as a default, much less BEFORE we get into doctrinal differences.

Though to your credit here with the McDonalds = Christianity thing... the first McDonalds was a LOT different, and far more sincere and healthy, than the McDonald's we have today.

I wouldn't say just because Christianity can't tell you each specific case that it doesn't exist, its just a more general term.
Toxicodendron genus is a family of plants, but I wouldn't be able to specifically tell you that I'm talking about the poison ivy plant by just yelling out Toxicodendron. But it would be more precise to yell that big word than just yelling "plant." However unlike McDonalds and Wendys I can't tell you the difference between Poison Ivy or its relatives and other harmless types of plant out there due to my uninformed nature of the plant kingdom. Christianity just serves as a statement to narrow down (not very well in this situation) to a smaller group. So saying "A Christian is/believes/does" could be true if it applied to all of the subgroups of Christianity.
Unfortunately for simplicity, most people just say "Christians do this" when they've experienced one type of them, assuming the parent group inherits the child group's qualities.

Were they the type of people who, if they were drowning, and they saw a life jacket float along, would refuse to put it on because God would save them?

I wish these kinds of people didn't exist, honestly. My friend is a retired first responder and tries to forget a certain 8 and 11 year old they couldn't save from blood loss because the parents stepped in and said they couldn't allow impure blood from outside the faith be injected into them.

On the same note, how many people would trust their doctors if they relied more on "Happy thoughts and good feelings" than "Years of medical school and science."

[Goose]

I agree with you on a lot of things. I"m not going to, (well, I"ve learnt a lot from being on here so long) try to convince you to convert to my faith, but I'm not going to negate my faith because science cannot prove that it exists. My faith is mine alone, and I"m not going to ask others to believe what I believe, (Again, what I"ve learned from being here. ) But I will argue that just because the christian down the road is a hateful bastard, dont think that we are all like that, some of us are quite different.

Some of us are just ordinary people who have come to know the love of God, admit they aren't perfect, and are not ashamed to say it.

[Kascade]

I honestly see Christians as I defined the word Christianity above, just a general statement. If it can apply to all Christians then its an aspect of the word Christian, but "Good" or "Bad" people wont fit into that word. The only thing I can say about all Christians is that statement you said about how they believe in Christ as the son of god. You're a Christian, but you're also much more than something as general as that. I can't say "All Christians are bad" and feel good about it because I can't honestly believe that. I can however say selective groups are bad, but that means I'm focusing on one particular group which means I exclude all the other groups from that comment. I say that Phelps is a horrible person, personally. But I don't apply that to the entire Christian belief, or even Religion as a whole. It doesn't require religion to be that horrible of a person.

In other words, sorry if I sounded like I was trying to say something else. I wasn't trying to honestly dislodge anyone's belief or make any attack.
I was just trying to say the experiences and arguments that repels me personally from theism.

[Goose]

Sorry if I didn't state my opinion with more clarity. I wasn't trying to attack your statement. I personally wish Fred Phelps would stop giving christians a bad name. If Fred Phelps and his followers were what Christianity was about, I'd certainly not be a Christian.

I more agree with you than anything. Sorry for any confusion.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Sorry if I didn't state my opinion with more clarity. I wasn't trying to attack your statement. I personally wish Fred Phelps would stop giving christians a bad name. If Fred Phelps and his followers were what Christianity was about, I'd certainly not be a Christian.

I more agree with you than anything. Sorry for any confusion.

But it's not just Fred Phelps.

There's several Catholic Priests (nost just the paedophilic ones either), the Pope himself when he lies about condoms, Pat Robertson, Kirk Cameron, Ray Comfort, the so-called Moral Majority, Tim LaHaye, the guy behind Chick Tracts...

Not all of them are as bad as Fred Phelps, and some are "seemingly" harmless in that the only thing they seem to do is spread lies and really stupid counter-arguments against atheism. However, they aren't giving Christians a good name, either.

[SOAP]

for what it's worth, I think most non-Christians are able to dissociate the likes of Fred Phelps (and for that matter Kirk Camera, Pat Robertson, ect) with the rest of Christianity.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

for what it's worth, I think most non-Christians are able to dissociate the likes of Fred Phelps (and for that matter Kirk Camera, Pat Robertson, ect) with the rest of Christianity.

Actually I tend to forget to distinguish them. I know they're different, but I forget to think of them as different.

[Goose]

And its those guys that give the rest of us bad reputations. Which is why I think often its the people that dont get heard like that , that deserve to be heard more often. Like my friend, who's devoting her life to work in Uganda Africa as an orphanage mother. She starts up orpahanages and takes care of sick kids.

[SOAP]

for what it's worth, I think most non-Christians are able to dissociate the likes of Fred Phelps (and for that matter Kirk Camera, Pat Robertson, ect) with the rest of Christianity.

Actually I tend to forget to distinguish them. I know they're different, but I forget to think of them as different.

That's why it's only what I think, not a statement of fact. What the hell do I know. I live in Texas. If there's any non-Christians here they're all in the closet!

I only tend to forget to dissociate them in the heat of a debate, or when one of them says something incredibly dumb (like Kirk Kameron (or heck VenomFangX)) I have to stop myself from wanting to punch the nearest Christian in the face.

[Oberon Storm]

I live in Texas. If there's any non-Christians here they're all in the closet!

Visit a college town. We tend to be more open about it.

[SOAP]

I live in Texas. If there's any non-Christians here they're all in the closet!

Visit a college town. We tend to be more open about it.

I've been meaning to go Austin for some time.

Actually scratch what I said earlier. They're many different beliefs in Texas. I just don't get out much and the people I do hang out just tend to be either Christian or they don't talk about religion at all.

[Reflectionist]

People call whatever the hell they want to God, whether God is a tolerant, ever loving hippy or a judgmental overlord hellbent on the destruction of the human spirit. It's what simultaneously gives the name of God power and precludes it, making it meaningless; 'saltless,' to use the Biblical word. People tend to project their own qualities into Christianity's teachings, and call that God. The bigots preach a bigoted God, and beautiful people preach a beautiful God.

To clarify: just because I might know the "right words" to say (whether it's for Christianity or otherwise) does not mean that I believe them. I might have been lying when I said I hated God three weeks ago just as easily as I might have been lying when I said I believed in God three days ago. Ignorance is bliss, because it prevents second guessing.

The point is that the words themselves don't mean anything without the transcendental relationship that exists between a word and the object or concept that the word signifies. A dog is not the word 'dog.' So when people use words like 'God,' 'sin,' 'evil,' et cetera, there's really no objective reason to even suggest that they have a grasp on them, because a word is much closer to how it's used than what it represents. That's what simultaneously makes the words powerful in an "oh-my-god-my-head's-a-gun" sense, but also makes them completely meaningless and inaccessible on an objective level. Which leaves subjectivity, which precludes the possibility of absolute truth that is the entire freaking purpose of theism.

Theism is a placebo, in other words. But some people are just okay with that.

Edited by Reflectionist, 09 May 2009 - 06:52 PM.

[Goose]

^ In your opinion that is. Which is just as valid as anybody elses.


And now for the question that will annoy you. What if somebody did encounter God, and it wasn't just a placebo? Yet they couldn't explain it or show it to you, so it was just as subjective as someone claming they saw Dog, and Dog is good. Does the fact that it cannot be proved invalidate their relationship with said deity, or does it make it just as right as your claim of non belief in said deity?

What I'm trying to get at, is that it may seem like just a placebo to you, maybe its real to another person. What I'm asking is that you stop trying to invalidate others faiths in any deities, because you choose not to believe in said deities. I"m not trying to force, or even ask you to believe, but I'm asking you to stop ridiculing to idea of others faiths, whether they be chrisitian, muslim, hindi, hindu, norse, sumerian, or pastafarian.

As to your language discussion, I agree with you in the sense that if people claim a relationship to a word, like God, or a concept represented by word, then it could be said that a relationship with a word is meaningless and a placebo, but if, like in said example, that word refers to something that they do know, like a Dog, and can actually pat and feed said dog, then therefor that relationship is valid. The twister in this discussion though is if somebody does claim that they actually know and have met a deity of some kind, with proof or nay, does the word God mean more than just a word, if they actually have a relationship with said deity?

Kind of like if I said, " I have a friend named Jim. Jim is cool."

and you disbelieved me, because I normally speak crap, and said. "Jim doesn't exist, you're full of shit"

but If somehow I did know a friend named Jim, I wasn't making it up for once, but you just hadn't met this friend, then the fact that I talk about Jim means more than if I had just made up a name out of thin air. The fact that I can't prove Jim exists to you makes it subjective, but my relationship to him still exists, and is more than just a placebo.

So in other words, theism is not a placebo. But thats just my opinion. And as valid as the dude down the street who talks to lamp posts.

[wisp]

Wow, I'm getting a distinct feeling of deja vu from this...

[Goose]

Its been a few months. Me and reflectionist need to get our argument quota up. Even if it is the same one we always have.

[wisp]

Ah, I see. XP

So it's like the World Series of Contro or something?

[Reflectionist]

^ In your opinion that is. Which is just as valid as anybody elses.


And now for the question that will annoy you. What if somebody did encounter God, and it wasn't just a placebo? Yet they couldn't explain it or show it to you, so it was just as subjective as someone claming they saw Dog, and Dog is good. Does the fact that it cannot be proved invalidate their relationship with said deity, or does it make it just as right as your claim of non belief in said deity?

What I'm trying to get at, is that it may seem like just a placebo to you, maybe its real to another person. What I'm asking is that you stop trying to invalidate others faiths in any deities, because you choose not to believe in said deities. I"m not trying to force, or even ask you to believe, but I'm asking you to stop ridiculing to idea of others faiths, whether they be chrisitian, muslim, hindi, hindu, norse, sumerian, or pastafarian.

As to your language discussion, I agree with you in the sense that if people claim a relationship to a word, like God, or a concept represented by word, then it could be said that a relationship with a word is meaningless and a placebo, but if, like in said example, that word refers to something that they do know, like a Dog, and can actually pat and feed said dog, then therefor that relationship is valid. The twister in this discussion though is if somebody does claim that they actually know and have met a deity of some kind, with proof or nay, does the word God mean more than just a word, if they actually have a relationship with said deity?

Kind of like if I said, " I have a friend named Jim. Jim is cool."

and you disbelieved me, because I normally speak crap, and said. "Jim doesn't exist, you're full of shit"

but If somehow I did know a friend named Jim, I wasn't making it up for once, but you just hadn't met this friend, then the fact that I talk about Jim means more than if I had just made up a name out of thin air. The fact that I can't prove Jim exists to you makes it subjective, but my relationship to him still exists, and is more than just a placebo.

So in other words, theism is not a placebo. But thats just my opinion. And as valid as the dude down the street who talks to lamp posts.

You misunderstood the word placebo.
You misunderstood what I was saying about transcendental relationships.
I've answered the question before. Many, many times.

Invalidating faith is not the same thing as ridiculing one's faith. Look, it's much more morally defensive to admit ignorance and claim subjectivity, here, than claim objectivity. If you could drop your pride in your so-called ability to know God long enough to do so, you would see that the uncertainty is what makes faith, faith. The uncertainty is what makes faith powerful. The uncertainty is what makes faith admirable.

Until you do that, it IS ridiculous, and nothing but a matter of pride. Simple.

[Steel Samurai]

Let me see if I understand here, because I think it's boiling down to semantics, as always.

Reflectionist's definition of placebo: Something which works BECAUSE you have faith in it.

Goose's definition of placebo: Something which has no innate value in and of itself, it is the taker of the placebo that had the power within them to fix it all along, etc.


Assuming the above definitions are accurate.

Reflectionist, assuming you're not out to intentionally piss people off (which I'm not sure about sometimes) you may want to rethink some of your analogies and how they can be misinterpreted. My thoughts went exactly the same way as Goose's when I read your original post.

Invalidate: Again, I think, (and hope) there are semantics issues. Invalidate could be being used to mean "make logically impossible" or to "show that there is no logical connection between a set of axioms and a conclusion"

I hope Goose is using the first definition, and Reflectionist is using the second. I hold to the position that you cannot prove the existence of God through logic, yet, nonetheless, his existence is not a logical impossibility.

Also, Reflectionist, saying that Goose has a pride issue because he claims to know definitively that there is a God is (if you're going to go down that route) possibly a bit prideful on your part, since you're claiming to know for certain that there is no way that he could know for certain that there is a God (if I understand both of your positions correctly)

Essentially, can we please, PLEASE leave this discussion to new people? I think everybody except Egann, theists and non-theists alike, agree that there is no way to objectively prove to everyone that there is a God.

My personal opinion is that God made it that way on purpose. He left little signs and trails for seekers to follow, in our minds, in the world around us, that we wouldn't be completely directionless, but, ultimately, it's our free will.

[Oberon Storm]

It looks like Reflectionist wants Goose to admit that his experience with God is subjective to him & cannot be proven.

Goose has done that. Several times.

It looks like what Goose wants is for Reflectionist to stop telling him his belief is not valid when Reflectionist cannot even prove God does not exist.

Refelectionist has not done that.

[Reflectionist]

Let me see if I understand here, because I think it's boiling down to semantics, as always.

Reflectionist's definition of placebo: Something which works BECAUSE you have faith in it.

Goose's definition of placebo: Something which has no innate value in and of itself, it is the taker of the placebo that had the power within them to fix it all along, etc.

Assuming the above definitions are accurate.

Something more along the lines of Religion is a placebo because Nihilism is antecedent to faith. You cannot be happy with your existence as is and have faith in a God.

Reflectionist, assuming you're not out to intentionally piss people off (which I'm not sure about sometimes) you may want to rethink some of your analogies and how they can be misinterpreted. My thoughts went exactly the same way as Goose's when I read your original post.

*shrug* I usually copy and paste paragraphs from much larger bodies of writing that I've done. I'm usually not out to encroach upon anyone as much as it is I want to see how certain parts are received.

Invalidate: Again, I think, (and hope) there are semantics issues. Invalidate could be being used to mean "make logically impossible" or to "show that there is no logical connection between a set of axioms and a conclusion"

I hope Goose is using the first definition, and Reflectionist is using the second. I hold to the position that you cannot prove the existence of God through logic, yet, nonetheless, his existence is not a logical impossibility.

Pretty much.

Also, Reflectionist, saying that Goose has a pride issue because he claims to know definitively that there is a God is (if you're going to go down that route) possibly a bit prideful on your part, since you're claiming to know for certain that there is no way that he could know for certain that there is a God (if I understand both of your positions correctly).

Umm... what? Sure... if you think it's prideful to say "I'm not capable of comprehending the infinite." Which, I haven't the slightest idea why the hell you would think that... but to each his own, bro. However, to quote from the large bit of expositional writing I've put on my LA profile (which should be read by everyone who interacts with me at least once): "My goal is to dig. Not just dig for me, but to inspire you to dig as well. I am less concerned with your views than I am with how you got to those views and how you live them out, whatever they may be. It is scrutiny that is admittedly sometimes rude and unapologetic, but it is also one that I subject myself to, albeit without the proverbial safety nets."

I may be rude externally... but compared to how I treat myself, it's sunshine and puppies.

It looks like Reflectionist wants Goose to admit that his experience with God is subjective to him & cannot be proven.

Goose has done that. Several times.

It looks like what Goose wants is for Reflectionist to stop telling him his belief is not valid when Reflectionist cannot even prove God does not exist.

Reflectionist has not done that.

Why would I want to prove God doesn't exist? I'm not a complete idiot. Do you realize that if I were to make an attempt at proving that God doesn't exist I would be guilty of the same things I'd "accused" Goose of? I know enough about logic to know that trying to apply it to God's existence is like saying "The color blue doesn't exist because I can't smell it," or "The color blue exists because you can't smell it," or hell, even "The color blue didn't want us to smell it, so that's why I believe it exists."

Objectively speaking, it's not valid. And Goose has been denying that dichotomy ever since we'd started having this debate. (Saying "It's objective to me!" is not a concession.) And what does it mean to be valid, anyway? Because depending on your definition, to be objective or logical is to be valid, and everything else is not. But to other views, it's the other way around (because hell, what's authentic about doing something because you've got no other choice?).

No, the point that I was trying to make is similar to the point that this guy likes to make. I'm not a theist. I'm not an atheist. I don't have an agenda. I don't have a plan. There's no method to the madness. I don't really care what you believe, as long as it can take a crazy motherfucker like me taking a baseball bat to it every now and again.

Edited by Reflectionist, 10 May 2009 - 01:56 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

Why would I want to prove God doesn't exist? I'm not a complete idiot. Do you realize that if I were to make an attempt at proving that God doesn't exist I would be guilty of the same things I'd "accused" Goose of? I know enough about logic to know that trying to apply it to God's existence is like saying "The color blue doesn't exist because I can't smell it," or "The color blue exists because you can't smell it," or hell, even "The color blue didn't want us to smell it, so that's why I believe it exists."

Objectively speaking, it's not valid. And Goose has been denying that dichotomy ever since we'd started having this debate. (Saying "It's objective to me!" is not a concession.) And what does it mean to be valid, anyway? Because depending on your definition, to be objective or logical is to be valid, and everything else is not. But to other views, it's the other way around (because hell, what's authentic about doing something because you've got no other choice?).

No, the point that I was trying to make is similar to the point that this guy likes to make. I'm not a theist. I'm not an atheist. I don't have an agenda. I don't have a plan. There's no method to the madness. I don't really care what you believe, as long as it can take a crazy motherfucker like me taking a baseball bat to it every now and again.

Yes, Goose did say that once. I wondered at the time if Goose knew what objectivity and subjectivity were. Since then & in his last post, at least they way I have taken it, Goose is asking what does it matter if he can prove it to you or not? How does it make is relationship with God less real? To him is is real. That's all that matters isn't it? When you tell him he is wrong & that the relationship isn't real it's like you're calling him stupid. That's how I would take it in his position. While no one really wants you to even try to disprove God, they still want you to admit that you can't & that your belief is just as subjective.

Granted, you might not be trying to tell him he's wrong. Half the time I don't know what you or Egann are talking about so I stay out of it.

[Reflectionist]

"Granted, you might not be trying to tell him he's wrong. Half the time I don't know what you or Egann are talking about so I stay out of it."

[Goose]

Objectively speaking, it's not valid. And Goose has been denying that dichotomy ever since we'd started having this debate. (Saying "It's objective to me!" is not a concession.) And what does it mean to be valid, anyway? Because depending on your definition, to be objective or logical is to be valid, and everything else is not. But to other views, it's the other way around (because hell, what's authentic about doing something because you've got no other choice?).

No, the point that I was trying to make is similar to the point that this guy likes to make. I'm not a theist. I'm not an atheist. I don't have an agenda. I don't have a plan. There's no method to the madness. I don't really care what you believe, as long as it can take a crazy motherfucker like me taking a baseball bat to it every now and again.

I guess I like the process of having a baseball bat to my belief systems. It makes them stronger, and makes me reevaluate them. Which is why I like to not only endure the barrage, but ask some of my own. That may be the one thing we have in common, the desire to ask questions, and though he might think differently, point to the moon. (I'd rather point to the sun, its purdyer. )

Invalidating faith is not the same thing as ridiculing one's faith. Look, it's much more morally defensive to admit ignorance and claim subjectivity, here, than claim objectivity. If you could drop your pride in your so-called ability to know God long enough to do so, you would see that the uncertainty is what makes faith, faith. The uncertainty is what makes faith powerful. The uncertainty is what makes faith admirable.

Until you do that, it IS ridiculous, and nothing but a matter of pride. Simple.

From a debating standpoint, I see your point. To say that I can know, for sure, that God exists like I know that My mum exists, sounds full of pride. The position itself sounds up itself. But here is where the subjectivity comes in. By me saying that I haven't encountered God, would be a lie, and therefore, worthless.

Lets try an example.

A man claims he believes in God. Having not met God, he cannot be sure. But being unsure about it, uncertain even, he stands by his faith even though he doesn't have a leg to stand on. From the outside it looks admirable. From the inside, its empty, a lie. For him to claim that he believes in God yet not actually have a foundation to that faith is little more than a lie. He CAN claim that he believes in the idea of a God, and would like to meet him, but until he encounters Christ, then to say that he believes god is real is lying to himself. I'd call this dude a seeker. I was this dude. I thought the idea of a God was rather cool. But I didn't know he existed.

But theres me now. and I have the more vulnerable position of claiming that after seeking this idea of a God, I encountered it. But after having encountered said deity, I can now claim that I know God, which i now understand is wholly subjective, and though the position sounds full of pride, to claim differently would be a lie to myself, and therfore a lie to you. And pointless.

Though we disagree, I would rather be honest with you and claim that I can, and do, know God, but say that understanding that there is no objectivity in the position at all. Just Subjectivity.

Something more along the lines of Religion is a placebo because Nihilism is antecedent to faith. You cannot be happy with your existence as is and have faith in a God.

Why?

[Reflectionist]

I'm 28 minutes into watching Seven Pounds, and I paused it to answer this. I like the feeling I have right now, and that's what's to blame for my attitude for this post.

------

Never have I seen someone convert because their life was just grand and they believed in God. People convert because they're broken and need something that they believe this world cannot provide them with to fix their hearts...or they are just gullible. I mean, sure, someone might just be the happiest person in the world and just believe when someone tells them there's a God because... well, why not? There's no immediate reason to distrust that person, is there?

Either nihilism or gullibility is antecedent to faith.

But I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Whatever works to sell your product, I suppose. "Come as you are," and all that jazz... but unfortunately, it doesn't amount to "Come as you are and we'll love you, warts and all;" it's "Come as you are; leave as we say."

People with broken hearts or a heavy conscience depend on religion to make their world "right" again.

And, though there is no malice, no hate, no belligerence, no anger, no vendettas to be had, by the very nature of what religion is, and what it tells you, these people are used. Without fail. They are made to believe that there is a better world that awaits them. They are given hope, yes. But they are not equipped with the ability to use it to make their lives better. In that sense, religion is a placebo. An opiate.

Because it must be. Because it seems like that's all that God really has to offer. Tell me, friend. What does God offer you? Sure, there is the promise of eternal life. But nobody knows anyone who's been there (that's the point of eternal life). It's like saying "I'll give you a million dollars if you leave town. But you'll only get it when you leave town, and if you do leave town, you're not allowed to come back or talk to anyone from in town again." I mean, really... how would you know that I'd make good on my offer?

That's the only... admirable use for religion. But it doesn't speak to 'truth,' or 'validity,' or 'logic.' It speaks to the human condition. But even then, there's a "reason" for it, isn't there? And what a heavy burden of a reason it is. Not only is someone's life falling to shit, but the religious have the audacity to say "and it's your fault - you need forgiveness."

The rest, however... is mere bigotry. A tool used to control people. To judge people. To tell them they are broken. To tell them that they are idiots, or that they have no 'objectivity,' without it. To ridicule. To harm. To make people broken so they have a market for their product. The caterpillar becomes the butterfly, though, so it's not like the distinction is large.

There are two kinds of people, when it comes to religion. Those who abuse it, and those who are enslaved by it.

So really. What does God really offer you that you actually can take to the bank? Something that you couldn't get somewhere else? Something you couldn't go out and get yourself?

Because I've found nothing yet.

Believing in God, as far as I'm concerned, is a great way of putting the blindfold on, putting the earplugs in, and putting the BDSM ball gag of Jesus in your mouth. "Don't speak. Don't hear. Don't look. Don't think."

That's what religion is, to me.

But you know... maybe I'm just a bit scarred. Just a bit.

Edited by Reflectionist, 10 May 2009 - 10:40 PM.

[Goose]

Never have I seen someone convert because their life was just grand and they believed in God. People convert because they're broken and need something that they believe this world cannot provide them with to fix their hearts...or they are just gullible. I mean, sure, someone might just be the happiest person in the world and just believe when someone tells them there's a God because... well, why not? There's no immediate reason to distrust that person, is there?

Either nihilism or gullibility is antecedent to faith.

But I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Whatever works to sell your product, I suppose. "Come as you are," and all that jazz... but unfortunately, it doesn't amount to "Come as you are and we'll love you, warts and all;" it's "Come as you are; leave as we say."
People with broken hearts or a heavy conscience depend on religion to make their world "right" again.

And, though there is no malice, no hate, no belligerence, no anger, no vendettas to be had, by the very nature of what religion is, and what it tells you, these people are used. Without fail. They are made to believe that there is a better world that awaits them. They are given hope, yes. But they are not equipped with the ability to use it to make their lives better. In that sense, religion is a placebo. An opiate.

Because it must be. Because it seems like that's all that God really has to offer. Tell me, friend. What does God offer you? Sure, there is the promise of eternal life. But nobody knows anyone who's been there (that's the point of eternal life). It's like saying "I'll give you a million dollars if you leave town. But you'll only get it when you leave town, and if you do leave town, you're not allowed to come back or talk to anyone from in town again." I mean, really... how would you know that I'd make good on my offer?

That's the only... admirable use for religion. But it doesn't speak to 'truth,' or 'validity,' or 'logic.' It speaks to the human condition. But even then, there's a "reason" for it, isn't there? And what a heavy burden of a reason it is. Not only is someone's life falling to shit, but the religious have the audacity to say "and it's your fault - you need forgiveness."

The rest, however... is mere bigotry. A tool used to control people. To judge people. To tell them they are broken. To tell them that they are idiots, or that they have no 'objectivity,' without it. To ridicule. To harm. To make people broken so they have a market for their product. The caterpillar becomes the butterfly, though, so it's not like the distinction is large.

There are two kinds of people, when it comes to religion. Those who abuse it, and those who are enslaved by it.

So really. What does God really offer you that you actually can take to the bank? Something that you couldn't get somewhere else? Something you couldn't go out and get yourself?

Because I've found nothing yet.

Believing in God, as far as I'm concerned, is a great way of putting the blindfold on, putting the earplugs in, and putting the BDSM ball gag of Jesus in your mouth. "Don't speak. Don't hear. Don't look. Don't think."

That's what religion is, to me.

But you know... maybe I'm just a bit scarred. Just a bit.

I"m not going to invalidate your experiences. I"ve read your blog. I"ve known you for a bit now. I respect you. A lot.

But I am going to say that what you've gone through isn't how it should be.

But I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Whatever works to sell your product, I suppose. "Come as you are," and all that jazz... but unfortunately, it doesn't amount to "Come as you are and we'll love you, warts and all;" it's "Come as you are; leave as we say."

The whole idea of christianity is "Come as you are and we'll love you, warts an all." Thats the message Jesus Preached. He loves us no matter what. period. done. But its how people take on that message and put their own hatred behind it. Thats the thing that destroys and skewes a message like that, and it becomes what you said in your second speech bubble.

But it shouldn't be like that. And Its not like that everywhere.

Because it must be. Because it seems like that's all that God really has to offer. Tell me, friend. What does God offer you? Sure, there is the promise of eternal life. But nobody knows anyone who's been there (that's the point of eternal life). It's like saying "I'll give you a million dollars if you leave town. But you'll only get it when you leave town, and if you do leave town, you're not allowed to come back or talk to anyone from in town again." I mean, really... how would you know that I'd make good on my offer?

In answer to your first question. Love. Not like other kinds of love. I love my family, a lot. I've had a good life. A great one. I love my family to bits. But the love I experience from God goes to another, well not level because it sounds like Dragon Ball Z, but on another plane of reality type love.

God also offers me relationships, and not just with church people, but other types of relationships. Its hard to describe without looking like a nut, but there is soo much more in a genuine relationship with Christ than the ,"when you die, your with me."

But in answer to the second question, trust. I really dont care if I end up with him in eternity or not. It would be cool. But the love, and the tangible things that come with it. I mean, God is more than what you tink God is. And I sound like a lunatic saying this, but I say it anyway.

The rest, however... is mere bigotry. A tool used to control people. To judge people. To tell them they are broken. To tell them that they are idiots, or that they have no 'objectivity,' without it. To ridicule. To harm. To make people broken so they have a market for their product. The caterpillar becomes the butterfly, though, so it's not like the distinction is large.

There are two kinds of people, when it comes to religion. Those who abuse it, and those who are enslaved by it.

So really. What does God really offer you that you actually can take to the bank? Something that you couldn't get somewhere else? Something you couldn't go out and get yourself?

Because I've found nothing yet.

Believing in God, as far as I'm concerned, is a great way of putting the blindfold on, putting the earplugs in, and putting the BDSM ball gag of Jesus in your mouth. "Don't speak. Don't hear. Don't look. Don't think."

That's what religion is, to me.

But you know... maybe I'm just a bit scarred. Just a bit.

That is your experience of religion. Of people. But Thats not mine. For me its, WAKE UP!

"WAKE UP, look, hear, think, speak, do! Look at whats around you."

It was a spiritual awakening for me. Think the matrix.

[Raien]

I find it interesting that most changes of belief happen through a "revelation". It's never something that happens gradually or calmly, always quickly and with a sense of being "open to the world". Considering that this appears to happen for every religion, I'm tempted to call it a trick of the mind as opposed to a genuine spiritual encounter.