Rants and articles submitted by and for ex-Christians


AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Having demonstrated a complete apostasy from Christianity, it is apparent that I am bound for a "Christ-less" grave. My purposeless, meaningless, hedonistic life will be snuffed out one day soon where I will be subject to the dark cold oblivion of death. Everything I have built on this Earth will crumble and fall. All the goals and ambitions I thought worth my time will amount to nothing after I am gone. All memory of me will be erased from history all too soon. Any possessions accumulated will be dissipated as those who come afterwards divvy them up between themselves, and I will return to the dust from which I came, rarely to be thought of again. My existential world view offers me no hope of continued conscious existence, no escape from the Grim Reaper's sickle, and no assurance of a higher purpose beyond that shared by the plants and animals. The law of the jungle is the rule of life, and the vain pursuit of pleasure is the only motivation to continue breathing.

In contrast, the Christian has an everlasting purpose, thick with meaning that will never be overcome by the darkness of temporary flesh's demise. The heavenly treasures amassed will not rust nor be destroyed throughout all the never ending encroaching years of eternity. The law of Grace is the rule of life, and the pleasure derived from glorifying God and enjoying HIM forever is the only real stimulus to go on fighting the good fight.

When I was a Christian, I mindlessly nodded my head in agreement to the previous paragraphs, sadly contemplating the worthless lives of those outside the faith while silently meditating on my good fortune to be part of the Elect of God, chosen before the foundation of the world. A management philosophy I learned some years ago while still in the military states concisely that "perception is reality." The conclusions that can be drawn from understanding this simple three-word-truth are far reaching, if someone is interested in understanding one major aspect of how people comprehend reality. For instance, before Hitler came to power in Germany, the Fascists preached their gospel of Antisemitism continuously and persuasively. Over time, the bulk of the population became convinced that the ills in their society could be directly attributed to the Jewish influence in politics, economics, etc. Although this idea may seem incomprehensible to most of us today, many people in pre-WWII Germany, as well as most of the rest of Europe, had that perception firmly planted in their minds. To them, the "Jewish problem," and the need to erase it from existence, was an unarguable reality. History is indelibly marked with other examples like this of the consequences brought about through misguided political ideologies. Closer to home, in the work place, if employees have the opinion that management is evil, ever seeking out new ways to aggressively squeeze more labor out of them without compensation, the general morale will decline, confrontations will escalate, and productivity will suffer. If, however, employees are of the opinion that their employer is an ally, looking out to protect their personal best interests while still attaining business goals, the atmosphere will tend to be one of positive cooperation where people want to come to work. Close personal relationships are deeply affected by the "perception is reality" model. The pathologically jealous husband or wife will virtually tear a love affair to shreds with their suspicions of spousal infidelity, regardless of the actual innocence or guilt of the spouse. It many ways it doesn't matter what the truth is in any of these scenarios. What really matters is what the people involved believe to be true.

Christians believe their lives will go on forever. Christians believe that they have a higher, more meaningful purpose than the rest of humanity, partly from the belief that they serve the one true GOD and partly because they believe their efforts will be rewarded and never taken away from them. As Christians we were all told this — or something similar — so many times that we just came to accept it without thinking. To imagine being doomed to a Christ-less grave was to be stripped of any reason to live. If this life is all we have, say some Christians, then suicide might be preferable to mindlessly struggling against the unconquerable adversary of mortality. One Christian actually said he expected me to commit suicide very soon, since I now had no reason to live. That was three years ago.

Whatever people believe to be true, for them it becomes reality. As the Fascists demonstrated, if you repeat something often enough, people will accept it as true. Generations of propagandists around the world have profited from that very practice. Perceived reality and actual reality are often not in agreement, but it is the perceived version which gives people the impetus for their behavior.

The verifiable reality of being human is that we are all mortal. We have life, given to us by the union of our parents, and we do the best we can with the opportunities presented by our individual circumstances. Every one of us will eventually take a final ride in our own funeral procession; nothing can change that for any of us. People naturally tend to think of the world and its history in relation to their own lives. We usually think of things in the past as "when I was younger" or "back in my day." Elderly people often remark on how things have changed over the years. Of course what they mean is how things have changed in their own lifetimes. When we think about the time before we were born, that's all murky and unreal. Distant historical figures and the details of their respective realities are stories we cannot easily relate to. Many people are bored to tears with reading or thinking about history prior to their own birth. Seeing no relevance to their lives, learning history seems a complete waste of time to many. That lack of interest is easily understandable. Before I was born, I did not exist. Since I did not exist back then, my life is unaffected, and whatever happened back then seems irrelevant, at least at first glance. Now, the outcome of history does affect our lives, to be sure, but what I am trying to draw attention to is something else. The actual experiences of those who came before me, I cannot really share. I wasn't there; I wasn't alive. I did not feel their pain, and I did not feel their joy. I was not excited while they had an adventure; I was not saddened by their tragedy. I did not rejoice with their triumphs; I did not mourn their deaths. I wasn't there, so I didn't know or feel anything at all. I feel no disappointment in that lack of experience. I don't feel anything at all about all the uncountable generations before I was born. Millions of people lived and died before I was born, and although I missed them all, I haven’t felt terribly deprived of missing out on it. Since an apparent eternity is spread out going backwards in time before I was ever born, totally bereft of my individuality and presence, is my life therefore pointless? After I am gone, another incomprehensible expanse of time will follow the point where my life intersected with history. I will miss all that comes after just as I missed all that came before. My contention is that I will suffer just as much from that lack of experience in the future as I have suffered from the lack of experience in the past. In other words, not at all. I won't know about it because I won't be there. I won't be sad about it; I won't be anything at all.

This is not hopelessly sad pessimism; it is just plain reality. Life is not empty because it is not eternal. Life is great, grand, fun, exciting, hard, easy, full, empty or whatever we make of it. As a former Christian I am told by my previous religion that life without Christ is nothing. That is one point of view; that is one "perception." I would tell the Christian that a life spent striving to please an unverifiable mythological being in the hopes of attaining personal survival beyond physical life is not necessarily a better way to spend an all too limited lifespan.

All of us face the same fate, not one of us as human beings will escape the clutches of our own death. Throughout history people have had a difficult time accepting this hard reality and have invented complex religions and rituals to cloud their minds and fool themselves into believing that others may die, but they will go on. The only difference between the Christian in death and everyone else is what the person believes happens when he, she, or they die. There is no evidence of anyone surviving beyond the grave. There is no evidence that humans are significantly different from any other form of life on Earth, except perhaps the capacity of our brains. In every other way we share the fate of every other creature on the planet. The DNA of chimpanzees is so close to that of human beings as to nearly make us close cousins. We are smarter than they are, and more able to adapt and survive both individually and corporately, but we are as mortal as they are. It is arrogance as a species that encourages us to believe we are much more special in the scheme of life.

Coming to grips with the idea of personal mortality does not necessarily lead to a destructive self-absorbed lifestyle devoid of compassion, love, giving, mercy, etc. The reason some Christians think that a life without Christ is empty is because they are so preoccupied with their own personal individual survival into eternity. They reason that if there is no individual continuance beyond death, people should just grab for all the selfish fun they can, no matter the consequences. They reason to themselves that if there is no final judgment, then there is no restraint on heinous behavior. This is a childish and overly simplistic idea. What Christians demonstrate when they posit this nonsense is that they are themselves so selfish that if they are not going to get a big fat reward for all their subservience to deity, then they want to break out and have an orgy of pleasure before they die. They reveal their own innermost and shallow motivations. The greatest humanitarians are not those who do good because they believe that eventually they will be rewarded. The real humanitarian heroes are those who do what they do for the rest of humanity just because they love life, love people, and love making things better for others and the future. Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and a host of other famous non-Christians have contributed immensely to the betterment of humanity in ways that two millennium of Christians have never even attempted.

There is one final destination for us all; there is no difference regardless of our "perception of reality." The Christian believes differently, but has absolutely no evidence to back up their viewpoint other than the hearsay report of a highly suspect, contradictory book of myths. A book, no less, which was written and complied for the stated purpose of keeping adherents in line by using threats of horrific damnation and promises of indistinct rewards.

What is your perception? What is your reality?
 
Anonymous freedy said...
The bible teaching of heaven/rewards,..or hell/punishment is so revolting to me now, that I've lost all respect for anyone who actually believes that crap!
The shallowness of christians is only overshaddowed by the arrogance, that they alone know the secrets of the grave!
Heaven/hell doctrines are for cowards, and mindless goose-stepping morans!


Blogger Piprus said...
You really caught my attention with your first paragraph, and I was already thinking of a counter-rant, until I kept reading...well-written, indeed! I quite agree with you, of course. And I can testify that having been a christian, and now an atheist, I have a more positive view of life than ever, because I know that it is not under the control or whimsy of an imaginary middle eastern deity, I don't have a "burden of sin" carried from birth that I need redemption for, and there is not going to be a "day of judgement" or an outpouring of the "wrath of god" on a sinful world. Live life while you've got it. And in a way, we do live on after death...the good we have done in our lives has a way of multiplying itself within the lives of those we leave behind. And that is just fine enough for me. Good posting.


Blogger dead__fish said...
VERY VERY well written! I particularly enjoyed that first paragraph!


Anonymous Anonymous said...
And then you found out you are one of the non-elect rejected from the foundation of the world. Your on the right blog with the rest of the losers.


Blogger Harlequin said...
I enjoyed that too...

I tend to think there's something splendidly Byronesque about being the end of one's genetic line (and believe me, there's nothing in mine worth preserving, unless a long, lingering ugly death where everything you ever were is stripped away one memory at a time is an 'admirable trait')

When I'm gone they can harvest what's useful, and pickle the rest with the label 'This is what we do with Bad Boys'... :D

Love

Grandpa


Blogger Bentley said...
I knew it would soon happen, we have another anonymous religious christian coward with his/her chest puffed out from being stroked by their own self-righteousness petulation!


What is your perception? What is your reality?

I thought it was very insightful and profound! I particularly liked this,

"I would tell the Christian that a life spent striving to please an unverifiable mythological being in the hopes of attaining personal survival beyond physical life is not necessarily a better way to spend an all too limited lifespan."

Truth and reality becomes a potentual threat to the fundy trying to make himself believe in something that his own intelligence is struggling against by forcing his mind to accept the impossible and the unbelievable.

Was that compiled by you, WM? Very insightful indeed!


Blogger boomSLANG said...
And then you found out you are one of the non-elect rejected from the foundation of the world.

Foundation of the world? What might that be?...pillars? lol

Your on the right blog with the rest of the losers.

One of the non-elect...rejected from grammar school.


BTW, a great article....very profound.


Anonymous Lorena said...
Webmaster
striving to please an unverifiable mythological being in the hopes of attaining personal survival beyond physical life is not necessarily a better way to spend an all too limited lifespan.

Lorena
That's the very thought that led to my deconversion. As a Christian, I was miserable. Jesus did not help me shake the blues. So I concluded that having to live like that in "heaven" for eternity would be "hell."

Now I just pursue my own happiness, which, I discovered, entails loving and being loved by my fellow humans. And I am not depressed anymore.

I believe the name of the game is "Here and Now."


Anonymous Leon said...
The Christian thinks he has bought into an preneed insurance policy that will guide and carefully and ever so lovingly place him/her into the next realm. The insurance salesman uses words like bought and paid for and to the naive misguided believer thinks he/she has a share or certificate of authority granted to them by a grandiose promise as stated in a book, brought over here by Christopher Columbus just by verbally stating and professing with their mouths and making a pact not to stray away from the teachings of their kind Shepard and the promises of their "Good Book."

A book with the meanderings of a group of fear stricken lunatics, with a grip to control millions and lead them into mindless maniacal oblivion!


Anonymous Anonymous said...
I know this wasn't a fundy posting this, but if it were, my response to: "All the goals and ambitions I thought worth my time will amount to nothing after I am gone."

Would be:

"Waaaaa"


Anonymous Janet said...
Aren't we all just glad there exists a God above in the clouds that will judge us all based upon our perception of our reality and our prescribed beliefs?

I personally think there must certainly be a God that will allow deformed babies to be born with birth defects and people born with down syndrome and especially siamese twins, especially the one joined at the head.

I always wondered if siamese twins were conjoined and they shared the same heart, if one of them were an atheist and the other were a christian, how would this God judge them equally since it is the heart that stores the Christian beliefs.

I think God especially gets a kick out of the siamese twins that are joined butted head to head.

These are just the one's that get reported, there's plenty more born with different numbers of limbs and protrusions, I suppose this God enjoys seeing such gross displays that he has allowed to happen to us ignorant worthless mortal fools.


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anony, another hopelessly lost xtian. Lost in the sense that you haven't a clue what life is really about.

Dave, excellent insights. I loved the article. There's nothing that proves the Christians wrong like those of us who lived the teachings and dared experiment. They are so far off-track with the provable stuff (forty years ago the adults were saying the world was going to the dogs because of us evils kids and young people who were growing up back then and it hasn't happened yet). This makes it quite safe to assume the less provable part--the "what happens after death" phase--is baloney, too.

A number of years ago when I came to the insight that this life is all we get I felt so sorry for my parents who believe they have to live such self-sacrificial lives to buy a wonderful hereafter. I longed to bring them the good news that it's okay to indulge in simple pleasures like TV, the internet, and music. These things could greatly improve the quality of their lives now that they are old and feeble. But they are not receptive so there isn't much I can do. They are, after all, adults.

I think they are going to be seriously disappointed when they find themselves not in heaven but interred six feet down. My consolation lies in what you said, Dave, when we're dead we're dead and we won't know it. So I guess they won't know they are disappointed and that their sacrifices didn't buy them a spot inside the door of heaven.


Anonymous Anonymous said...
You know what's odd to me is that the notion of christians going to heaven is not universal among christians or in christian history. I seem to recall reading, either in Shakespeare or in other numerous 19th century works, that one faces oblivion at death. It was none to clear to anyone what one's fate was to be. When lives were much harder (a century ago and going back)I think people were a little saner. Any comments or back-up on this? I really recall this was a very tangible attitude.

Naomi


Anonymous Tammy said...
I was just glossing over the local obituaries and I came upon this statement about someones father.

"He was a dedicated father, and he cherished his grandchildren with all his heart. His love was felt by many. He was a man that loved God, his family, and was respected by everyone who knew him. We, as his children, were blessed by his knowledge and wisdom. We love you, Dad."

Isn't this really what the whole Christian thing is all about?

Perception!!! I can see Jesus on a hill with his arms outstretched calling his sheeple home, especially in death.

Ahh what grandiose perception that the Bible and it's minions have weaved.

For the Christian it's all about Perception, how they are being perceived. In their minds, are they being perceived as being worthy enough to be called a Christian?

If not, then what shall they do? Shall they come on here and spew their self-righteous religious phrases, in hopes that one of us will perhaps admire what they have said and become as one of them?

Blessed be those that perceive that they have been chosen to rub elbows with the imaginary judge of all of mankind.


Anonymous freedy said...
"From the foundation of the world"
" Ka'te bole' e'ty kosmos"; means from the beginning of the first world order. Yes according to the babble there was a world order before Adam,(the pre-adamic race).
(They were all destroyed by god).
*The sad thing is the ignorant fundy probably knows nothing or little about the scriptures.
To Piprus,...this is what I was taught in bible school, and is hidden through-out old and new testaments.


Anonymous freedy said...
That was boomslang,not piprus I was talking too,..oops!


Blogger .:webmaster:. said...
Was that compiled by you, WM?

Yup, I'm the author.


Blogger boomSLANG said...
obituary of believer:

He was a dedicated father, and he cherished his grandchildren with all his heart. His love was felt by many. He was a man that loved God, his family, and was respected by everyone who knew him. We, as his children, were blessed by his knowledge and wisdom. We love you, Dad.

obituary of a non-believer:

He was a dedicated father, and he cherished his grandchildren with all his heart. His love was felt by many. He was a man who loved his family, and was respected by everyone who knew him. We, as his children, are greatful for his knowledge and wisdom. We love you, Dad.

Trim the fat.


Blogger boomSLANG said...
Yup, I'm the author.

Seriously, that's one of the better things I've read lately. Kudos.


Anonymous Anonymous said...
The thought content behind this essay is very real to me though some of it is a bit lengthy. Also, the German people had a long indoctrination against the Jews that goes all the way back to Shakespeare. So Hitler was able to easily use the Jews as scapegoats for the Deutschland's societal problems. Incidentally, the Roman Catholic church had it's chance to help the Jews from some of the Holocaust but the Pope turned his back on them. Another Christian hypocrite. Anyway, this is a very thoughtful and personal response to the absurdity of Christian myths that unfortunately dominate most of the US. Christians are unable to even remotely consider that life can be blessed without Jesus and all that Christian belief system. Christianity is, in my opinion, a very subtle form of brainwashing that people fall for. It takes a strong person to break out of that mind set and see the absurdity of Christian beliefs.


Blogger Ian said...
That's a fascinating article. As someone who does believe in a spiritual side of life (but not bible-god), I must admit that the idea of our lives being meaningless and pointless in the grand scheme of things is a bit hard to swallow. Especially the idea that we have one lifetime, then that's it. I do believe that our conciousness survives death, but now's not the place to discuss that.

As for my perception and my reality, it is that we are here to improve ourselves as individuals, and to contribute meaningfully to this world and it's inhabitants, to use our skills and abiliites for the good of all. If there is a perfect God, that's what I think sie would want us to do.


Anonymous Warnepiece said...
Webmaster,

That is brilliant! I especially found the parallels between Nazism and Christianity highly appropriate. Just as Christian, and other religious leaders, down through the ages have tried to palm off their own big lies on the unsuspecting, Hitler himself said “The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one”. His perception of people’s gullibility was extraordinarily accurate.

And Christians would do well to remember Hitler’s comments in his speech in Passau on October 27, 1928 “We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.

Thanks for a very enlightening and well developed article!


Blogger jim earl said...
I cannot read this without giving my opinion. Kudos to the WM for a great article. I am printing it out and will leave it on the kitchen table for my wife to read. Hopefully it may help her to see that I'm not alone in my feelings. Thanks again for one of the best short articles I have read lately.


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Webmaster (is that Dave?),

Sadly, I cannot count myself as one of your enthusiasts. For this, I apologize. I tried, really, but I could not elevate myself sufficiently to find this essay as wonderful as did some of your other readers.

OK. So we all have the same fate. Atheist, theist, we all disappear. We all vanish into the abyss of non-being (which is neither cold nor dark by the way). What advantage does atheism have over theism? I mean, if I, a silly theist, end up in the exact same state as an atheist, then why bother? Meaning is merely subjective, for it cannot endure the compressions of time: even physics tells us that everything will be drawn into the great implosion of a black hole, or some such fate. Time, as we know it, will disappear; history will be obliterated. There will be no memory of you, your good works, your enduring beneficence. There will be no awareness of death; there will be no awareness of life. In death and oblivion there are no answers, no perspectives, no memories. No one is right, or wrong. Truth and falsehood do not exist, they cannot endure the abyss that draws all things unto itself. Atheism and theism vanish into so much absence.

So why should anyone care about theism? Who gives a rat if a person has converted to atheism, or deconverted to it? Nihilism obliviates all other absolutes but itself. How, pray tell, does atheism help me live a "better life" when better is purely a subjective and ephemeral term? You are merely suggesting that theists switch from one ladder to another, though both are made of wax and both lead nowhere. Is it possible that the atheist merely enjoys more of nowhere than a theist; that the atheist possesses more nothingness than the nearest Christian?

Really, you gain nothing, nothing at all, in believing in God, or NOT believing in God. My theism will not make me a better mathematician, nor will it improve my photography; nor will my atheism change the fact that 2+2=4. All kinds of Christians have contributed to the "advancement" of science and knowledge (contrary to your absurd dismissal); as have Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and polytheistic pagans. How will making them atheists improve their lives if, as you admit, their lives are blips that are obliterated in nothingness; how will atheism reshape their creativity?

You know, I cannot understand your first line in ¶3. How could you have mindlessly nodded your head to ¶1 if, in fact, you were a Christian? Moreover, how could you have done this mindlessly, since both ¶1 and ¶2 require significant mindfulness to even understand them?

Lastly, how do you escape the imprisonment of your own meme? You know what I mean: if perception is reality, if truth becomes what one is repeatedly told, then how are you exempt from this? Are you not just a victim of repeated perception? It seems that is the case: you've arrived at nothing NEW here: countless thinkers before you have paved the way. You have accepted a pre-digested creed as time-worn as Christian orthodoxy.

Anyhow, just a few hasty thoughts.

May you have a blessed life,

BG


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Ha - Here is where Christians get lost and give up.

"I am the Truth, the light and the way" yeah we have all heard that one and dont feel like marching and following. But look again at the passage written another way.
"I am (is) the Truth, light etc..
Follow and know you are the I Am
"I am" is the silence in you, the person who meets the ocean, the person who awakes at 4 in the morning feeling at one with everything. "I am" is the answer you FEEl when answering Who am I? I am is the silent part of you which is friggin everything!! Call it That. Everything is made of That, you are That, I am That etc..
So the christians follow the messenger and not the message. Its like going to a baseball game, getting into and becomeing the spirit of the game and then coming home and telling everyone baseball is only Brooks Robinson.
Correct translation of that bible quote is "I am the truth, the light and the way, No one comes to the father except through I AM"

I am is all.... I am is you.

Mike Smith

Look deeeply to see if you exist.... then whats left... I Am


Blogger .:webmaster:. said...
Dear Webmaster (is that Dave?),

Yes, I’m Dave

Sadly, I cannot count myself as one of your enthusiasts. For this, I apologize. I tried, really, but I could not elevate myself sufficiently to find this essay as wonderful as did some of your other readers.

Sad? Could not elevate? I read a bit on your site, and you are clearly a died-in-the-wool, unapologetic, confident-in-your-beliefs "True Christian™." Or did you simply mean to barb me with a little sarcasm? If so, I approve. I like sarcasm as a tool for generating discussion.

OK. So we all have the same fate. Atheist, theist, we all disappear. We all vanish into the abyss of non-being (which is neither cold nor dark by the way). What advantage does atheism have over theism? I mean, if I, a silly theist, end up in the exact same state as an atheist, then why bother? Meaning is merely subjective, for it cannot endure the compressions of time: even physics tells us that everything will be drawn into the great implosion of a black hole, or some such fate. Time, as we know it, will disappear; history will be obliterated. There will be no memory of you, your good works, your enduring beneficence. There will be no awareness of death; there will be no awareness of life. In death and oblivion there are no answers, no perspectives, no memories. No one is right, or wrong. Truth and falsehood do not exist, they cannot endure the abyss that draws all things unto itself. Atheism and theism vanish into so much absence.

Now, this is good. Thank you for this part of your contribution.

Clearly you see the world as having value only as it relates to you individually. I don't know if you have a family, or children, but for me, my life has more meaning in giving of my time and resources toward my kids than it does in spending it all on personal pleasures. If I am poor, sick and dying, but my children are successful and healthy, I'll feel that I've done quite well. Ultimately life is about the future of our species, not the future of the individual. For example, we don't mourn the loss of one dinosaur; we mourn the extinction of the dinosaurs. We don't mourn the loss of one buffalo, but we will mourn the loss of all buffalo. Do you get the point? Survival of humankind is probably more important than my individual desire to live forever. Don't misinterpret here, that doesn't mean I am of no individual value or that I think a fascist regime that destroys people is a good idea. Fascism and Communism didn't do any good for the survival of humanity. In my opinion, the governments rooted in democratic principles offer the best chances for "our kind." And there may be better governmental constructs we haven't thought of yet, but democratic concepts and ideals have done much to bring people out of the horror of a darker, more ignorant times.

From what you wrote above, you only see the value in life contained in only one thing — you. You seem to be asking, "Without me, what is the point of anything?" There is certainly more to life and reality than me or you. We are part of a much bigger picture called life on planet Earth, and religion creates a terrible gulf between us, preaching eternal condemnation of those who believe the wrong form of the incorrect religion.

So why should anyone care about theism? Who gives a rat if a person has converted to atheism, or deconverted to it? Nihilism obliviates all other absolutes but itself. How, pray tell, does atheism help me live a "better life" when better is purely a subjective and ephemeral term? You are merely suggesting that theists switch from one ladder to another, though both are made of wax and both lead nowhere. Is it possible that the atheist merely enjoys more of nowhere than a theist; that the atheist possesses more nothingness than the nearest Christian?

Because ideas have consequences, and those who really believe that all unbelievers will be tortured in unending horror by a just and wise God, logically should have no problem torturing and killing unbelievers if necessary. In fact, a little study of western history will demonstrate that for over 1,000 years, Christianity did torture, maim and kill unbelievers, frequently, and in great numbers. Secular laws now prohibit that behavior in the West, but Islam is still in the Dark Ages, and the bodies of unbelievers are piling up.

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of this site. This site is for people who have realized that Christianity is untrue. When people leave a religious cult, especially one as pervasive as Christianity, it can be emotionally difficult. Then, when that individual finds there are many, many people who were once firmly committed to Christianity, only to leave it later — in some cases, decades later — it can be quite encouraging.

What I wonder is why you find life without a religion to be filled with nothingness and meaninglessness? While death may mean personal oblivion, oblivion is certainly not nearly as depressing to a person as is the fear of an eternal life of torture in some sadistic God's hell. Is it?

Really, you gain nothing, nothing at all, in believing in God, or NOT believing in God. My theism will not make me a better mathematician, nor will it improve my photography; nor will my atheism change the fact that 2+2=4. All kinds of Christians have contributed to the "advancement" of science and knowledge (contrary to your absurd dismissal); as have Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and polytheistic pagans. How will making them atheists improve their lives if, as you admit, their lives are blips that are obliterated in nothingness; how will atheism reshape their creativity?

I suppose to properly answer this section, we'd have to first come to some agreement on self-evident truth. My assumption here would be that reality is preferable to fantasy in regards to life choices. If it's entertainment value one is seeking, then fantasy and reality may be equal competitors, depending on the audience. Life can be entertaining, but I would think that someone who believed they had been given power from God to heal people, and therefore neglected attending medical school, has made a life choice that will eventually be regretted. However, had that same person had a better grasp on reality, the world might have another doctor.

I mean, I love the Harry Potter stories, but I know that magic is pretend. As a child is was fun to believe in Santa, but maturity tends to change our perspectives on these things. You wouldn't honestly advocate that someone live in a fantasy world because reality isn't quite as attractive as we'd like it do be, would you?

You know, I cannot understand your first line in ¶3. How could you have mindlessly nodded your head to ¶1 if, in fact, you were a Christian? Moreover, how could you have done this mindlessly, since both ¶1 and ¶2 require significant mindfulness to even understand them?

I agree with you. I would better have expressed my idea by saying "I ignorantly nodded my head to" or "I stupidly nodded my head to" or "I mistakenly nodded my head to" or something similar. At the time that I initially accepted these beliefs I was 11 years old. And in the years prior to that, I'd been taken to church, attended Sunday school, and been to vacation Bible schools. Looking back in retrospect, I was mindless. I was a child, and I was programmed.

Lastly, how do you escape the imprisonment of your own meme? You know what I mean: if perception is reality, if truth becomes what one is repeatedly told, then how are you exempt from this? Are you not just a victim of repeated perception? It seems that is the case: you've arrived at nothing NEW here: countless thinkers before you have paved the way. You have accepted a pre-digested creed as time-worn as Christian orthodoxy.

There is kernel of truth in this statement of yours. We are all subject to the confines of our individual minds and capabilities. Therefore, I question everything — including myself. In fact, it was from questioning my long held beliefs that eventually led me to my present philosophical position. I didn’t just read a book by an atheist and chuck 30 years of committed Christian living. In fact, I didn’t read a single book by an atheist until long after I left Christianity. It was studying conflicting Christian versions of theology and history that gave me the initial doubts strong enough to shake my beliefs.

Anyhow, just a few hasty thoughts.

Likewise.


Blogger boomSLANG said...
So we all have the same fate. Atheist, theist, we all disappear. We all vanish into the abyss of non-being (which is neither cold nor dark by the way). What advantage does atheism have over theism? I mean, if I, a silly theist, end up in the exact same state as an atheist, then why bother?

"Why bother?" This is a question frequently asked by theists/dualists, and honestly, I always fail to understand this "black and white" mentality. How/why does an atemporal existance supercede a temporal life? I call the former an "existance", because without death(finality), there IS no "life"; without life, there is no death. There is a fundamental dichotomy there. Moreover, from an atemporal standpoint---once you perform every task/desire you could ever fathom; once you have every single question you could possibly conjure up answered(infinite knowledge)...then---THEN---is a better time to ask "what's the point?" It seems that an eternal existance would ultimately become a mundane "hell"(pun intended).

A hypothetical to the hypothetical could be---would someone who lived to be 80 or 90 yrs old have more "purpose" in their life, as opposed to someone whose life was cut short at age 40? And of course, it depends on the individual's subjective beliefs/circumstances---but based purely on measured time, I don't see the correlation of the equation "more time" = "more purpose". Additionally, if the person who lives longer spends 20% of their time trying to get into the "next life", they have wasted precious moments of the one life that they know they have, when they could've been doing/saying the things they won't get a chance to do "later".

Sure, the theist can talk about God's love being eternal and "perfect", etc...but "perfect" leads to bordem. Conceptually speaking--- a "perfect" God must've known that perfection leads to bordem too, otherwise, he wouldn't 've created us knowing we'd be imperfect. After all, God presumably was leading a fine, fine, "perfect" uninterupted existance, but somewhere along the line, arbitrarily decided that "conflict" must have something over perfection, otherwise "why bother" with imperfect mortals?

how do you escape the imprisonment of your own meme? You know what I mean: if perception is reality, if truth becomes what one is repeatedly told, then how are you exempt from this?

Simple--don't believe everything you've repeatedly been told. Skepticism isn't a "meme"; nonbelief isn't a "meme". I believe a lot of things--likewise, I disbelief a lot of things. Neutrality isn't a "meme". Mind you, theists are frequently skeptical of skepticism. They are skeptical of all other gods, along with those gods' respective "Holy" books, if they have them. I would say that's mildly hypocritical.

Are you not just a victim of repeated perception? It seems that is the case: you've arrived at nothing NEW here: countless thinkers before you have paved the way. You have accepted a pre-digested creed as time-worn as Christian orthodoxy.

I might've misderstood, but throughtout, you seem to be saying that an atheist/agnostic worldview is equally as bad as Christian/religious world view. It seems you would want to elevate Christianity over atheism if you put so much creedence in your worldview.



(I know this wasn't my discussion, these are just some thoughts. Take it, or leave it.)


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Dave/Webmaster,

How unfortunate it is that you should misunderstand me. There was nothing sarcastic in my opening lines. My words were utterly sincere: I am unable to share in your readers' enthusiasm. Try as I may, no matter how hard I lift myself up, I cannot see what others see so clearly. This is a function of my own obtuse brain. If there is indeed truth in numbers, I am outnumbered, and I do not even get the equation.

I find it interesting that you should first label me as a "dyed-in-the-wool True Christian™" and then describe me as an egoist. As you may know, True Christians™ are hardly encouraged to be egoists, though, I am sure, one could argue that even altruism (or selflessness) is a form of selfishness. But had you spent more than a brief moment at my website you would not have been so quick to stereotype me. Not that you would resort to a veiled ad hominem right off the bat; but if you are interested, I would describe myself as a True Sceptic™ with Roman Catholic propensities. I have been an Episcopalian for most of my adult life. But the bottom line is that I am, at the very least, a theist.

OK. So I will reject my alleged egoism and say that the propagation and survival of humanity are the main goals of each of us. Or so you suggest. But who cares? What, really, is the difference? If the abyss is both our beginning and our end, then what do survival and propagation mean other than some bizarre effort to delay the inevitable? I do not know of a single scientist who would argue that humanity can survive the destruction of the universe; a destruction that will and must come.

Here's the analogy I find in your ideas. Life is like a white room with two doors in it. One door is an entrance only, the other is strictly an exit. Suddenly, out of nowhere, a human walks in to the great whiteness; he or she learns that there is nothing on the other side of either door. Our person is also told the brutal facts: he or she MUST at some point exit back into the great nothing. So, to make things more palatable, everyone inside the white room, realizing that it is just a waiting room, decides to make the MOST of it. But the fact is that making the most of it is merely a delay; it is to play with illusions. Whether we make the most of it by insisting that God is coming to take us out of the room to bring us to an even greater room -- one with no exits; or we simply try to occupy ourselves with procreation and meaning and survival for their own sakes; either way we are delusional. Any option inside that room is a lie, a fabrication, a pretense.

In fact, it would seem that the only HONEST person in that room would be the one insisting that we all rush out the exit door right now! Why delay the inevitable? Why endure the anxiety? Why allow one more person another second of disease, pain, loss, fear? Who cares what the cosmos thinks of our cowardice, for it is only cowardice if we believe in a metaphysical place from where our decisions are judged; who cares at all if there is -- in truth -- NOTHING metaphysical anywhere or anytime?

In fact, I believe you have injected a metaphysics -- a transcendent meaning -- to your own anti-transcendent worldview: you have argued that survival is somehow important. But to even suggest that survival is intrinsically important begs a question: important to whom? From whence comes this meaning and value other than from within the white room, full of deluded souls?

Camus might have thought it courageous to look into the abyss and nonetheless defy it by creating one's own purpose. But that is not courage; it is cowardice. Courage hurls oneself into what is real: and the only absolute that is definitely real is everything outside that white room. Everything inside is pure distraction.

You are right: ideas do have consequences. If you must insist on taking the simplest, most extreme example of "hell" found in the narrowest Christian traditions, then by all means do so. But realize you are arguing, at least with me, against a straw man of your own creation. Of course, one can quite equally point out that the true atheist's worldview gives us the absurdities of Nietzsche and Beckett, and the nausea of Jean-Paul Sartre. Ideas touting the glories of the abyss no doubt have their own dangers; to say that they don't or even to argue against them is to defend an idea with evangelical fervor, apologizing with as much energy as Josh McDowell at a Wheaton College roundtable.

But here is an idea I am not sure you mean to posit. You wrote:

Clearly you see the world as having value only as it relates to you individually. I don't know if you have a family, or children, but for me, my life has more meaning in giving of my time and resources toward my kids than it does in spending it all on personal pleasures. If I am poor, sick and dying, but my children are successful and healthy, I'll feel that I've done quite well. Ultimately life is about the future of our species, not the future of the individual.

Odd that you should tell me that I am an egoist and then present yourself as one as well: "I'll feel that I've done quite well." What do you mean by "ultimately?" What does that mean in an atheist's universe? There is nothing ultimate; all there is is nothing. The future is nothing. There is no individual, there is no collective.

You ask me if atheism is less inhumane than theism, i.e. the afterlife or lack thereof. Oblivion, you believe, is less scary than damnation. I would like to know how you know that. Regardless, the question is not about the afterlife, since it does not exist. The only thing that matters -- in your argument -- is the white room. Well then, what are you going to tell the children in that room? Are you going to tell them that the exit door is inevitable death and oblivion; are you going to torment them with delay after delay; or are you going to tell them that they are possibly going to be rescued, or that the door MIGHT lead to bliss? Which statement produces LESS anxiety in the white room, the true one or the lie? (Moreover, no one KNOWS FOR SURE that the exit is final, except the atheists.) Remember, we are only talking about survival in this life; the afterlife does not exist.

But you ignore Darwinism, don't you? Darwinism is all about competition, about survival. We do not mourn the extinction of the dinosaurs at all; we should mourn nothing that dies. Everything that has lived has had its chance to survive in the wildly competitive biosphere. We accept death as normal, a given. Don't we? But I wonder if you've ever once thought that the best way to survive (your highest goal, not mine) is to be a theist? For all we know, Darwinism has shown that the universe somehow favors theists; that the fittest who survive are even Christian fundamentalists. I mean, since there are so many fundamentalists, one would be hard pressed not to conclude that this is true: fundamentalists flourish. Is this because they are the best equipped for survival in a ruthlessly competitive world? Do they fare better because they believe a lie? Are the atheists who look squarely at the meaninglessness of the cosmos doomed by accepting the truth?

You are right that theists have killed their thousands. But the atheists, Mao and Stalin (among others), have killed their millions, their tens of millions. Latest tallies for the Spanish Inquisition put the death toll at, what, 4000? That's a light day in the atheists' gulags of the past 100 years.

Lastly, I understand completely your decision to reject Christianity for, well, nothingness. The internal conflicts within Christian theology are indeed disappointing, discouraging, and even disgusting. I am not one to quibble with the pains associated with faith, and the apparent conflict between faith and reason. I know too well the void, the nothingness, that one can find at the very heart of too much Christian dialogue. But I must say I personally find that to be a quality of Protestantism: being Protestant leads to far more intellectual problems than being Catholic. Of course, I know my Catholic peers who have left that faith would laugh at me. Perhaps, then, scepticism always comes in response to the tradition in which one is raised. But my personal experience is that Catholicism is far more integrated -- as is the Catholic view of the human person -- than is Protestantism. I mean, the Protestants were that group that put their whole wager on the infallibility and inerrancy of a book. Catholics have never been so restrictive.

Anyhow, peace and mirth to you. I am now off to listen to White Room by Cream. I may even listen to it backwards.

BG


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Boomslang,

Your remarks are appreciated.

Regarding the tedium you believe one might feel in an eternal existence, I can only say that there is something of a mistake evident in your musings. Let me ask you: What is infinity plus 1? What is infinity times 10? Can a person have a quarter cup of infinity, another person a whole cup?

You see, there is no consuming infinity; there is no reaching a saturation point in the eternal. So one could never find this tedious. One billion years is the same as a second: there is no waiting around where there is no clock. The atemporal life can never lead to boredom or satiety. They are functions of time and quantity, neither of which exist in the eternal or the infinite.

I agree with you that scepticism is not a meme; neither is belief. But my comments are referring to a sceptic's answers: that person whose scepticism leads him (or her) away from Christianity does so for a set of reasons, and that he usually accepts some OTHER explanation than Christianity. Hence, I am saying that both the reasons for leaving Christianity are not original to the sceptic (they rarely are) but are inherited from an intellectual predecessor; and that the OTHER explanation is also NOT original to the sceptic. That other explanation is a time-worn, bone-weary (perhaps) set of ideas that can also be described as mimetic: they themselves constitute a creed.

I mean, in about two seconds I can whip off nearly every reason a person rejects Christianity; and I can quite ably rip off a bunch of alternative explanations. I can do this NOT because I am an original thinker, but because I have heard so many different creeds, chants, and opinions. It is always a good exercise for each of us to ask ourselves if we have EVER had an original thought. The exercise can be quite scary. A sceptic nearly always lands on something; what he lands on is usually something constructed or known by countless others beforehand. How then does the sceptic know that his scepticism, and the answers he accepts, are not all due to his interest in belonging to a certain group; or to impress others; or to depress one's parents with "openmindedness" that they deem rebellious and disobedient? How does the sceptic know that he is not just trying to be the center of attention? You know what I mean: "I had no idea you of all people could be an ATHEIST!" or "Wow! A former Christian minister with an exciting DE-conversion story: Come hear his testimony!" Seriously, Christian or not, most of these ideas are rutted deep in the consciousness of humanity, with respective pilgrims grinding paths to the predictable.

I may indeed want to elevate Christianity over atheism. But atheism cannot give me any reason why I shouldn't, or why I can't. If nothingness is the only absolute, then Christian nothingness is as dynamic or as dead as atheistic nothingness. Why bother believing the truth if its outcome is identical with believing a lie? If both ideologies amount to a null set, well nothing plus nothing means nothing.

Peace and mirth,

BG


Anonymous Jim Arvo said...
BG, I'd like to respond to some of your comments, if I may, even though you directed them to the webmaster.

BG: "...If the abyss is both our beginning and our end, then what do survival and propagation mean other than some bizarre effort to delay the inevitable? I do not know of a single scientist who would argue that humanity can survive the destruction of the universe; a destruction that will and must come."

You seem to be espousing the philosophy that only that which is infinitely enduring is "meaningful." If we face personal oblivion when we die, then life has no meaning. If nothing can survive the big crunch, then nothing in the universe has any meaning. I'd like to know why infinity has any necessary connection with "meaning". I know that my life is finite, as well as the lives of my kids, but that in no way detracts from their "meaning" to me. The lives of those around me inform virtually every decision I make, and interactions with them account for a good bit of my waking hours. I'd like for you to explain how that fails to be "meaningful" in any intelligible sense of the word.

Here is a challenge that I often put to those who insist that only the infinite is meaningful. Take a metal spring binder--the kind that you open up by folding the little metal handles back and squeezing--and clamp it to the flesh on the back of your arm. Leave it there for five minutes. This is clearly a *finite* act; it will have no lasting consequences. Once the five minutes is up, it will receded into the past and be forgotten. Will you please go and do that now? I'll wait.

Did you do it? If not, why not? If you did, then you know it hurts like hell. Now, is it your contention that this act means absolutely nothing, and is therefore something you would be willing to repeat if I ask? (If not, why not?)

I wonder, as a kid did you refuse to go on rides at the carnival because they only last a finite time? Did you forego cakes and cookies because you can only enjoy them for a finite time? If so, that makes no sense to me at all.

BG: "In fact, it would seem that the only HONEST person in that room would be the one insisting that we all rush out the exit door right now! Why delay the inevitable? Why endure the anxiety? Why allow one more person another second of disease, pain, loss, fear?"

Why not kill ourselves right now? For one thing, we are biological organisms that are exquisitely tuned for survival--that is, our most fundamental motivations are "hard-wired" into us and require no "justification" at all. We wish to survive because our ancestors who exhibited this trait tended to be more successful at producing offspring than those who did not. If you insist that "survival" is therefore intrinsically "meaningless", then go right ahead. That assertion is itself meaningless.

BG: "In fact, I believe you have injected a metaphysics -- a transcendent meaning -- to your own anti-transcendent worldview: you have argued that survival is somehow important. But to even suggest that survival is intrinsically important begs a question: important to whom? From whence comes this meaning and value other than from within the white room, full of deluded souls?"

You seem to be searching for something beyond biology. Why? I suspect it's because you have a preconceived notion of what is "meaningful", and you simply deem anything that is not rooted in that concept to be "meaningless". That's nothing more than a semantic game. You assume a definition of "meaning" that serves your own purposes, but you do not give any rationale for adopting that definition. We can all play that trick, and thereby ramble on without saying anything at all (as I believe you have done).

BG: "Of course, one can quite equally point out that the true atheist's worldview gives us the absurdities of Nietzsche and Beckett, and the nausea of Jean-Paul Sartre."

As with the majority of believers, it appears you wish to demonize skeptics who do not accept your theology, throwing invectives at those you deem to be somehow representative of all atheists. This is nothing more than a diversion, in my opinion. Believers would not waste a minute on such castigation if they could offer compelling evidence for their claims. Since such evidence is painfully absent, it seems the only alternative is to demonize dissenters. I do not have a high opinion of that tactic.

BG: "What does that mean in an atheist's universe? There is nothing ultimate; all there is is nothing. The future is nothing. There is no individual, there is no collective."

What a bunch of nonsense that is! We don't share your unfounded belief in invisible conscious beings, so you project your bleak assessment onto us. You moan about impending nothingness as if it somehow undermined the present. Perhaps to you it would. If so, then I urge you to keep your religion. But for us you are leaping to ridiculous conclusions. Let me see if I can get this across to you another way. I'll project my worldview onto yours and demonstrate how dismal your life must be. You apparently think that only the infinite is meaningful, and this meaning is ultimately attached to some deity. If that is the case, then virtually everything in this life must be totally meaningless to you, as it is all temporal. How awful that must be! Furthermore, you seem to think that you have no intrinsic meaning of your own, as it all derives from your deity. Hence, you own life (even if infinite!) is meaningless in itself. How absolutely depressing that must be! How can you endure it? (See? My worldview doesn't illuminate yours any more than yours illuminates mine.)

BG: "But you ignore Darwinism, don't you? Darwinism is all about competition, about survival. We do not mourn the extinction of the dinosaurs at all; we should mourn nothing that dies. Everything that has lived has had its chance to survive in the wildly competitive biosphere. We accept death as normal, a given. Don't we?"

Yes, death is normal. However, this is not to say that it therefore makes no difference to those of us who survive. Again, you seem to endorse a fatuous philosophical assertion in lieu of empirical evidence. Furthermore, Darwinian selection is simply a *description* of what happens; it is not normative in the least. That is, it speaks to what *is*, not what *ought* to be.

In summary, I find your philosophy to be as empty as you claim our lives to be. It seems to be based on nothing at all aside from an unfounded preconception of what is "meaningful". Moreover, your entire argument is backwards in that you seem to argue about what *is*based on what you think would be most "meaningful." As far as I can tell, the universe in under no obligation to conform to what you feel is most desirable.


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Jim Arvo,

I would love to answer your questions!

Of course, I think I already have: I am not saying meaning must be eternal to be meaningful or even worthwhile. I am saying that all "meanings" are meaningless and meaningful to the same degree: they add up to nothing. By all means, enjoy your temporal meaning. Celebrate it; embrace it with all gusto. But no ONE meaning is BETTER than another. To suggest so, or to introduce "better" into the discussion, is to bring something meta, something beyond, into the discussion. I have not said eternality is better, nor have I said that eternity provides meaning of a higher order. I am saying that if the atheist believes that the ground of being is nothingness and meaninglessness, then atheism has no advantage over any form of theism.

I don't care if there is meaning inside the parentheses. If there is no afterlife, there is no meaning that endures one's own consciousness. None. Hence, since all things are temporal, not one thing leads a person to anything other than the great emptiness. One person who embraces theism may not get to nothingness as well as an atheist, but it matters not. Nothing, not even history, can judge who is the "more right" or the "more correct." These terms don't apply to the abyss.

So we all can high-five each other for being so very right about everything here in the anteroom of nihilism. But no one gains a thing from such celebrations: such celebrations are, indeed, the opiate of the people. We are going nowhere as swiftly or as slowly as we like.

Your required task, I am sorry to say, is utterly silly. You are asking me to endure pain for five minutes. OK. I have. Now what. All one can say is that I have felt pain. I cannot know if I have even felt it; lost, as I might be, in the great phenomenological battle of philosophy. Do I even exist? But even if I do, all I can say is that I FELT PAIN. Time and pain have nothing to do with meaning: Meaning is something WE ADD to our experience. We don't FIND meaning. We IMPOSE it. It is utterly SELF generated; or, we PERMIT ourselves to obey or accept someone else's meaningful explanation. If there is no meaning in the universe that one can find; if there is nothing that transcends experience that shapes reality, then meaning is simply a self-creation designed to self-hypnotize: it is an effort to sedate yourself to the harsh reality that you are fooling yourself.

This is as preposterous as any theist's trust in a life preserver being tossed from heaven. An atheist claims that there is no life preserver coming from heaven; and then he tosses an imaginary one to himself.

"We are exquisitely tuned for survival?" Really? Who TOLD YOU THIS and HOW do you know it? Tuned by whom, by what? And what of survival? Egads? How long, in the scheme of things, has organic life been active on this planet? Now compare that to cosmological time; compare that to the eternal abyss. Do you mean to say that 1 billion years of biology implies longevity or "fine tuning"? The very idea you bring is again, IMPOSED by you: the cosmos does not give you this. We have survived hardly any time at all; and we won't for much longer. Hence, judged against time, we are not "finely tuned" at all!

Now, you tell me to hurt myself and then ask why I won't. Of course, my answer is because I am not a nihilist. You should ask a nihilist; in other words, ask yourself. You are the one who then asks why we don't just kill ourselves. You then IMPOSE some sort of reason why life is GOOD; but goodness is a total fabrication of the mind solely to keep it feeling hopeful. But, if you are an atheist, you cannot accept this -- really -- though you are allowed to do whatever you want, since nothing is meaningful except to the solipsistic self.

Yes, you are right: my assertion that meaninglessness is meaningless is perfectly echoed by you. I don't care what we think we are hardwired to do. Sociobiologists have been arguing your point -- about genetic self-interest -- for decades. I personally accept this. But most homosexuals do not think this way at all, and would be offended by your claim that the more SUCCESSFUL living is rooted in procreating. And they are perfectly entitled to be so offended because, or so they argue, people who limit genetics to procreative self-interest are IMPOSING an order that the universe has not rubber-stamped. Be whatever you want, is the chant of the day. But you must know the consequences that come from such ideas.

You accuse me of hurling invectives at those who do not accept my theology. But I have done no such thing, nor have I posited one premise for "my theology." I am examining whether atheism is intellectually viable. So far, it is coming up quite short. I am not opposed to atheism per se; I am opposed to any atheist suggesting that atheism is better than theism. But there is NOTHING in the atheist's universe that entitles him to say such a thing, SINCE MEANING (according to him), COMES FROM THE INDIVIDUAL PERSON. If you accept this, then YOU MUST ACCEPT that another person's meaning is exactly that: it is their's. If you want to tell them they shouldn't or mustn't believe a particular way, fine. Perhaps that is built into your own sense of what a meaningful life is: you need to tell people that their own worldview is wrong. But since you appear to be a person who loves intellectual consistency, then you HAVE to accept that you have no privileged view of meaning if, indeed, meaning comes from each person. One cannot say that meaning comes from something OTHER than the person (a group is just a collection of persons) and remain an atheist. For atheism permits NO outside or extrinsic meaning whatsoever.

You know, now that I re-read the following paragraph of yours, I am tempted to beg that you retract it, since I have not demonized anyone here (or elsewhere), I have not propounded anything theistic, and I have not played to some sort of stereotype. Read it again and note that your sentences twine themselves into fallacies:

As with the majority of believers, it appears you wish to demonize skeptics who do not accept your theology, throwing invectives at those you deem to be somehow representative of all atheists. This is nothing more than a diversion, in my opinion. Believers would not waste a minute on such castigation if they could offer compelling evidence for their claims. Since such evidence is painfully absent, it seems the only alternative is to demonize dissenters. I do not have a high opinion of that tactic.

As you can see, this paragraph has no place here. You must think I am someone else; or you want to reduce me to a stereotype. I have done not one of the things you have claimed. No wonder you have a low opinion of that tactic. If I comment that Beckett and Nietzsche have created absurdities, well, I have not dismissed either of those fine thinkers; nor have I dismissed Mr. Sartre if I refer to Nausea, his book of that title. I am merely pointing out the very things they themselves pointed out: Nietzsche, who is one of my favorite philosophers, did in fact struggle with absurdities, as did Beckett. So, you see, I am not rejecting them; I embrace them. So I do not know where you are directing your comments.

It's odd that you should argue that as far as you're concerned, "the universe is under no obligation to conform" to what I feel "is most desirable." This is odd for two reasons. First, I have not shared my desires at all. Second, you have just coopted a classical theology argument: the Church sees no reason why God should be at all obliged to conform to your expectations. Your argument is structurally identical. You've just changed the terms.

I know exactly what Darwin's survival-of-the-fittest means, and I am saying that his descriptive is merely that: it does not tell us what makes something more fit than another, other than that one thing outlasts the other. I am saying that if we accept competition as a given -- rooted in biology -- and if survival is our goal, then someone needs to tell me what advantage atheism has over the fundamentalists who have been surviving just fine. You are right that Darwinism does not speak to what OUGHT to be. Religion does that. Science, atheistic philosophy: these are not in the business of telling us about oughts and shoulds and should nots, at least of the sort we are discussing here. If I am going to be empirical about this, then it is quite clear that death is indeed normative: we surely can't stop death without destroying the topsoil (decaying matter) necessary for life, and thus destroying life. There is no life without death. I can't see how THAT is not normative. Nor can I see how it is NOT normative that, if there is NO afterlife, then there are NO answers for any questions raised about God, meaning, the origins of consciousness, being, or who killed JKF. There is only nothing. Death means not only do we not know we are dead; it means we do not know we were ever alive. The grave is not silent, or dark, or cold. It is NOTHING. And so is every foolish thing we think is NOT nothing.

We are all only delaying the end for no known reason, except perhaps for fear of the unknown.

By the way, I made no specific claim that anyone's life is empty. I have not attacked a single person, though I think a good case could be made that you attacked me. I have merely attempted to show that certain ideas are empty. I mean, those folks who have ideas that are empty and yet claim to have found meaning are as curious to me as those who claim to have witnessed miracles. But I will not say their lives are empty. I will merely say that their "meaning" does not come from their ideas. Their meaning comes in spite of their ideas. Or, they must admit to intellectual inconsistency.

Lastly, I am not arguing for what is "most" or "more" meaningful. I am not even arguing for meaning. I am showing that it is thinkers such as yourself who think TIME has something to do with meaning. You think that the things you do which help people survive longer -- those things which strengthen humanity for the longer haul -- are meaningful. I am sure you would think that actions of yours which limit humanity's life span would be less meaningful. If so, then you must see that it is the atheists who are embedding meaning with length of time, too.

Peace and mirth,

BG

By the way, asking me whether I as a child ever refused to ride a amusement park ride because it was short-lived is to ask the wrong child. In fact, every child I've ever known was incredibly disappointed that the rides EVER stopped. And I can hardly think of a man who is glad that his sex life is finite, or that sex lasts but a few moments. I had dinner with an 87-year-old man last night, and I can assure you that he is not that happy that sex is a limited pleasure. What greater compliment can we pay to anything than to hope that it is eternal?


Blogger boomSLANG said...
Let me ask you: What is infinity plus 1? What is infinity times 10? Can a person have a quarter cup of infinity, another person a whole cup?

Good evening,

I am completely aware of the "concept" of "infinity", and the implications of such. So then, in essence, your answer would be something to the tune of.... "there's an infinite 'amount' of things to do in an atemporal existance, therefore, tedium wouldn't be a possiblity." If I'm wrong, by all means......I'm listening.

One billion years is the same as a second: there is no waiting around where there is no clock.

Yes, I know, the "greatest" conceivable/inconceivable "amount"---"infinity". Ironically, though, the smallest conceivable amount, as well. So, to postulate--- maybe when our hearts stop pumping; maybe when blood no longer provides oxygen to our vital organs, and gases and fluids pool in these organs; maybe when our brains cease to function and we "die"----maybe it's true, after all---maybe our "thoughts", including "self-awareness", somehow do pass on to "infinity". Infinity, um, the smallest conceivable amount of time..i.e.."nothing". But all is not lost, you are correct in that there still won't be any "waiting around". Agreed. That's just another way of looking at it, expanding on your own description of "infinity".

One more brief question on the matter of dualism---what is the "state" of this disembodied "non-physical" part of the self..i.e..the "soul", when one's physical body is asleep? This is considering, that presumably, "sleep" won't be necessary, or even logically possible, when there is "no clock"(your words). Just curious, and thanks in advance.

I agree with you that scepticism is not a meme; neither is belief. But my comments are referring to a sceptic's answers: that person whose scepticism leads him (or her) away from Christianity does so for a set of reasons, and that he usually accepts some OTHER explanation than Christianity.

One observation---your "scepticism" has lead you away from non-belief, no? Aren't you being skeptical of skepticism? I find that a bit hypocritical. Moreover, I disagree that I've accepted another "explanation". On the contrary, where the supernatural/metaphysical are concerned--- I don't accept those things as an "explanation", and thus, I'm content with pleading agnosticism until when/if there is a logical explanation. The unknown is not necessarily unknowable. Conclusion--the postition of neutrality is not an "explanation".

If nothingness is the only absolute, then Christian nothingness is as dynamic or as dead as atheistic nothingness. Why bother believing the truth if its outcome is identical with believing a lie? If both ideologies amount to a null set, well nothing plus nothing means nothing.

Scatch beneath the surface, and this is really nothing more than Pascal's Wager, IMO. Nonetheless, it say two things, right off the bat: 1) that the one proposing it isn't all that secure in what they believe, and 2) that if it's better to "believe just in case", one should examine all religions and pick the one with the hottest "hell", "just in case" the one with the best "Heaven", is the wrong one = )

Moving on---I fully understand the "white room" analogy wasn't directed toward me, however, I'd like to leave a counter-analogy. Take it, or leave it. Here it is:

You take your friends and family to the carnival. You are the one-hundreth "group" to go through the entrance, and the Ringmaster gives you limitless/life-time free passes for you and your loved ones to return any time you please. You go in, ride some rides, win some goldfish, eat pure sugar on a stick, get heckled, check out some 12 yr olds who look 30, yada, yada .....then you leave, and when you get back home and check your messages, you discover that the Ringmaster had left a message saying that he made an error, and that the passes were only good through June, 2040...so then, not a "lifetime", as originally promised.

Question: Do you take advantage of the time that you can spend with your loved ones at the carnival?.... by attending, having fun, and not focusing on the the time limit?....or do you sulk, bitch, cry, and moan that you were originally "promised" a lifetime of free passes, and therefore sit at home saying "this can't be....it can't, it can't, it can't!?!?!?

(it's really a rhetorical question)

Also, I can't let this go:

Lastly, I understand completely your decision to reject Christianity for, well, nothingness.

Then, pray tell, why the continuing dialogue? No one is saying "nothingness" is necessary "better", only more likely. Furthermore, no one is saying god is disproven, only unproven. 'Balls in your court.

Thank you, and that's all for now.


Blogger boomSLANG said...
LMAO!....sorry Jim, I didn't read your "carnival" analogy before I hit the "publish" button. D'oh!


Anonymous Anonymous said...
Dear Boomslang,

I guess I am involved in two distinct conversations, one with an atheist, the other with an agnostic.

I don't think I've really defined infinity other than that it is neither divisible nor augmentable. One can't add to it, one can't subtract it. It is not a state of being; it is not a state of knowing. And I see it, right now at least, as synonymous with eternity, the condition of timelessness. Now, it could be argued that nothing can happen in timelessness, not even sequential or linear thought, since sequential thought, in my mind, requires some sort of time. I am even willing to suggest that it is impossible for a being to be outside of time: If God makes a decision at all it must require the passage of time, e.g., He was not creating the world and then He was. He could not be doing both at once. If He decides X after concluding Y, then the very word "after" gives everything away: God is in time.

But we were talking about eternity, or at least you were. And you suggested that tedium might be eternity's only treasure. I argued that this could not be the case, since one could not get bored in eternity. But one might not get bored because there is nothing more to do; one might get bored because there is everything to do, or because it is not possible to do anything outside of time. I do not know. Nor do I know what exactly it is I am getting at. Perhaps I am confusing eternity with timelessness: perhaps we need to be thinking about time that has no terminus. But if that is the case, then an endless time seems like it should be timeless. Does that make sense? I know I've wandered from the psych ward (but at least I know it). But I can at least say this: I am not saying that there are an infinite number of things to do in an atemporal existence. I am saying there is no way of knowing a thing about any of it. Surely one cannot know if the atemporal breeds tedium. But I think tedium would be unlikely if, indeed, it could be possible to have a body and mind in an atemporal state (the body, I believe, is necessary: I do not believe in disembodied human consciousness).

I am sorry if I implied that you accepted "another explanation." I do not know the first thing about you. I was referring simply to the atheist in the abstract, the atheist par excellence. I have never met an atheist who does not think he has a right view of the world; I am referring to those who believe that they perceive reality better than the theists. These types of atheists, the prototypes perhaps, have indeed accepted an explanation of the world. They have not themselves discovered it; they've merely agreed with it. Moreover, many of these folks have come out of theism; hence, they are not generating doubts a priori or even ex nihilo; their doubts emerge from a set of propositions that must result in a certain other set of doubts and detractions. The doubters have not created even their own doubts, since the antithesis of nearly every proposition is latent within it; doubts and detractions (or negations) are predictable responses to nearly any set of statements. Nor have they created their own responses once they accept the arguments they follow: they embrace an identical atheism that is not one whit original to them (though there might be slight variations among them). There is, in fact, an atheist tradition complete with its own lexicon and apologies. So if I am sceptical of scepticism, I am usually sceptical of its claims that it is given solely to logic. There are sceptics out there who are sceptical for reasons that have nothing to do with logic, though they hide behind logic with vigor. But forgive me: I do not mean to confuse a sceptic with an atheist. There are probably some gullible atheists out there who have simply accepted what they've been told without question. I am merely sceptical of those who claim that Reason -- and not something else -- has led them to atheism. I am a Christian sceptic, or so I believe. But there are definitely atheistic fundamentalists. My point in making this distinction is simple, though perhaps a bit awkward; but there are indeed people who are atheists because it makes them feel proud, hip, powerful; for some, atheism exonerates them somehow, protecting them from guilt; some are atheists because they want to be like (or be) the smartest guy in the room, or even the world: Mr. Dawkins is an atheist, so I want to be one too. Others reject Christianity because they could not be a star in that sphere; so now they embrace atheism, hoping to be a different type of star. If there are Christians who accept Christ for a bunch of crazy reasons, then I have no doubt atheists do the same; the proof of this is not to be found in ideology but psychology. So, if I sound sceptical of scepticism, then you might be right. But what I am certainly sceptical of is bogus scepticism. (And by atheistic fundamentalists I mean those atheists who have based their view of reality on propositions, ideas, evidence and theories they have not created, thought, evaluated, gathered or analyzed for themselves: they are entirely dependent on the authority of others.)

I have written a letter to Christopher Hitchens that speaks to my point here. Sceptics believe that they have the corner on logic and reason; you have said that you will withhold judgment until you are given a logical explanation. I am saying that the conclusion one must reach if we take your position seriously does not support your position. Choice is involved, not compulsion.

No, if you scratch beneath the surface of my comments you will not find Pascal's Wager. There is no plus column or minus column in my statement:

"If both ideologies amount to a null set, well nothing plus nothing means nothing."

This simply points out that atheism has no advantage over theism; there is no wager, because there is no benefit in one over the other. I am dismissed as a theist because I believe (allegedly) that my meaning is found in some sort of endless time; while the atheist does not dismiss himself because his meaning is found in a more honest, or more survivable, or LONGER stretch of time. If the atheist is right that nothing is the total outcome of reality, then there is no wager. I accept the atheist's theory, but I reject his praxis; for if the theory is right, then anybody should be whatever he or she wants to be without being chided or proselytized by the atheist.

As for your carnival question: If a person chooses to have fun or not have fun, they are both equal. Complaining that the end is near or not complaining matters not one whit: the atheist tells me that everything I do ends in the inferno; he tells me that every second I ride on the roller coaster I am merely distracting myself to death. If, at the end of the carnival, those who have fun and those who don't both get annihilation for their reward, and even the carnival and everyone else are likewise annihilated, then discussing whether being glad or sad is rendered meaningless. It is just delusion either way. But the sour-faced folks are at least the most honest people about the carnival's reality: no one will ever gain a thing by riding a single carnival ride, since even memory is crushed in the black hole. Two seconds of life, or two decades, they both get you the same thing. Nothing.

Finally, regarding why I am bothering to discuss this all if I understand why someone rejects Christianity for nothingness; well, I can only say that merely because I understand something does not mean that I agree with it or that I think it right. But you have only given a truncated version of my overall statement. I was specifically speaking to the variety of religious problems unique to Protestantism, and that one can be fully deadened by those problems and the lovelessness with which they are often treated. I did not say that I agree with the overall arguments presented. I am merely saying that I understand. Egads, if I didn't, I would not be human. Man, I even understand why people hurt other folks or even kill: I am not above true human emotion, doubt and struggle. I know pain; I know disillusionment. And please realize that even if I understand the totality of an atheist's defense of his atheism, it does not follow that I have to accept it. I can, after all, reject truth if I feel like it. I mean, Christians have been accusing non-believers of that for millennia. Surely an atheist will not treat me the same way if I look at atheism and say that I believe atheism is true and yet reject it nonetheless. Why should anyone care?

Peace to you, and thanks for the engaging dialogue. It keeps the mind sharp in the dulling whiteness of this very cramped room.

BG


Blogger boomSLANG said...
It's late, and honestly, I feel the discussion is becoming convoluted, to a degree. I'll re-think it tomorrow. For now, only a couple of things:

I guess I am involved in two distinct conversations, one with an atheist, the other with an agnostic.

Um, those would be me. I am an agnostic atheist. Allow me---The existance of "God", and it's metaphysical trimmings..i.e.."afterlife", "souls" etc., cannot empirically be "known". Even you pointed out "meta" as "beyond", yes? Right, so, beyond the physical realm is what I speak of when I say "metaphysical". This lack of "knowledge" makes me "agnostic"--- hopefully you follow me so far.

Now---Atheism is about "belief". While it cannot be known whether "God" and his/her/it's "eternal domain" exists, I choose to not have a "belief" in such things, based on this lack of empirical evidence. However, if sufficient evidence is introduced(feel free anytime)..I promise, I will follow God's plan EVEN IF I HATE IT. This is where the position of "neutrality" comes in. My Atheism, regardless of where Contra' thinks I got the "information", is NOT a conviction. I'm not an atheist because it's "hip", or my neighbor's one. Please. And BTW, if Atheism is a "creed", religion, belief, monopoly....then NOT collecting butterflies is a "hobbie".

So, Contra', when you sit there and say over and over and over that we(the atheist) "reject Christianity for nothingness"....you are henously OFF the mark in your assumption. And really, as if "nothingness" actually "sounds" better than "eternal bliss"? What's up with that? AGAIN, I tell you---no one is telling Contra', at least I'm not, that "nothingness" is "better" than theism, only that it's truer, based on the empirical evidence that we have to date. Can we please move away from this now?..or do you still insist on taking issue with it? If so, WHERE, exactly?

BTW, if I understand you correctly, the crux of your business here on this ex-christian website is that you want atheists to confess that non-theism has no advantages over theism(in the "long run"). Firstly, and ironically, I'm actually envious of theists in some ways. I would much rather take my chances of being perpetually bored, floating around in the clouds with my deceased friends and family members, reminiscing of the olden days back on the ol' globe, than "going to sleep" forever, even though I won't know, one way, or the other. However, again, there is not one shred of empirical evidence that shows that the mind survives death. NONE. If evidence exists that I'm unaware of, now would be a fabulous time to introduce it, before this get's more convoluted and/or "cramped".

As for the carnival analogy, you went off on your "nihilist" kick again, which is odd, since you agreed that "meaning" is assigned by the individual, or didn't you? Again, I can barely tell when you're supporting your own worldview, or caricaturing mine. Nontheless, you said this much about it:

In fact, every child I've ever known was incredibly disappointed that the rides EVER stopped.

Right, but we aren't "children" anymore, are we?


Anonymous Jim Arvo said...
BG: "I am saying that if the atheist believes that the ground of being is nothingness and meaninglessness, then atheism has no advantage over any form of theism."

You're playing word games and erecting straw men. Tell me what the "ground of being" means. Tell me who holds this opinion. Please stop plastering the label "atheist" on all manner of ill-posed ideas.

BG: "If there is no afterlife, there is no meaning that endures one's own consciousness. None."

Okay, once I am dead, nothing is "meaningful" to me, as I have no more thoughts. Now, let's see where you go with this...

BG: "Hence, since all things are temporal, not one thing leads a person to anything other than the great emptiness."

What does it mean to "lead" a person to "great emptiness"? You mean there is no way to avoid death? If so, I agree. But your rhetoric is so loaded with bizarre connotations I can't be sure of what you're saying.

BG: "Nothing, not even history, ca