Whose mind is stayed on Thee?


Atheists read the Bible, they send their children to church, they talk about God and some write about him regularly. I would venture to say that atheists think about God more frequently than many Christians. What is the reason for this? When you love somebody, you think about them quite frequently; and your mind is free to stay upon them or go; to forget them or wander back. Love gives the mind freedom. But, when you hate someone (hate meaning “without love”), you think about them much more; and your mind is riveted upon them like a nail piercing the flesh upon a cross. How can you love someone you describe as a moral monster who kills someone for picking up sticks on the sabbath or destroys entire cities for homosexuality? If God was proved to exist; there’s no doubt they would hate him. In fact, for the atheist, every experience of suffering is like a hammer driving the piercing nail deeper; for the atheist blames God for his suffering (for if he exists, he is to blame). God is the atheist’s addiction. They love to hate him, and for that reason they are not free to forget him. Every effort to drive him out brings him closer.

Advertisements

39 thoughts on “Whose mind is stayed on Thee?

  1. I’m an atheist, and I really don’t spend time thinking about god. I do spend rather a lot of time thinking about god’s fan clubs, especially when they behave badly. They try to influence public policy, insert mythology into public schools, and use government institutions as pulpits. They work against women’s health and gay rights. They knock on my door and harass my children at their schools. They demonize people who don’t believe to the point where we often have to hide our opinions in order to keep our jobs.

    I’ve read story after story from people who were trapped in abusive situations in their churches and didn’t realize that they had the option to leave. They didn’t know they were even allowed to doubt. I’d like to help people like this think through their questions instead of suppressing them.

    (I’ve read the bible, twice through. That’s a big part of why I’m an atheist now. I’ve sent my kids to many different churches, to learn about the religions of the other people they will have to co-exist with. But I don’t hate god any more than I hate Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.)

    1. If a vine was spoiling your garden and causing your plants either to die or grow around it, would it be effective to save your garden by complaining about the branches of the vine or saying that they were abusive? If you succeeded in cutting off the branches of the vine, it still wouldn’t take care of the problem. The vine that “poisons everything” deserves your attention and your malice.

      “I’m a gardener, and I really don’t spend time thinking about the vine. I do spend rather a lot of time think about the branches.” I would not believe the person who said this. I would think they hated the vine.

      I’ve read the Bible many times as well and it’s a big part of why I’m a Christian.

      1. God is not “the vine”. People’s willingness to obey the dictates of organized religion without question is “the vine”.

        We’re talking about human beings here. I can’t go ripping the vines out of other people’s gardens, even if that vine is strangling everything. Especially when the people are going to a gardening club every week that tells them that the vines are wonderful, must be protected, in fact ARE the garden. All i can do is be the neighbor next door who says ‘You know, I pulled all the vines out of my garden, and it’s a lot nicer. All my other plants are growing so much better now! You might want to take a look at it sometime.”

      2. God is not the vine? Yes, he is. I don’t believe in statements, propositions, arguments, traditions, rituals, worship services, doctrines, or any other such thing (although I enjoy them). If I did, I would really only be believing in my thoughts. Neither do I trust in anybody else’s thoughts. If you focus on these previous things, you do not get to the root or the “why” of my religious behavior. My root is God. All truths, if they are really true and not true just because I say so, require a grounding in a changeless creator, otherwise we are all reduced to that circular reasoning that all lunatics are so fond of. And other statements become self-refuting or contradictory.

        For example: Circular

        “All men are in a conspiracy against me. They say they aren’t but that’s just what you’d expect because they are conspiring against me.”

        Belief in God is delusional because all that exists is matter and energy. You must be delusional because you believe in God. Immaterial things don’t exist. This is true because there is only matter and energy.”

        “There is no free will. This is true because I had no other choice but to say that.”

        “I have a better experience of life without religion; eliminating religion is good; what is good is my experience of my religionless life.” (you might feel that way, but it’s circular)

        Contradictory:

        “Humanity doesn’t have any objectively binding moral obligations. However, no one should should at any time rape children, ever!” (I certainly agree, but this is said as an objectively binding moral obligation.)

        Self-refuting:

        “We should believe only what can be proven scientifically. Science is the only source of knowledge and the only way to truth. We should not believe any proposition that cannot be proven scientifically, but if that is the case, then we cannot believe scientism’s proposition since the proposition itself cannot be proven scientifically.”

        People lose their faith because the object of their faith was a fallible person or a propositional statement or truth based on itself. But, they then go from one truth founded on itself to another truth founded on itself. For truth to be real and not subject to the whims of people who disagree with themselves and others, it must be founded upon a changeless creator. If religion is to be true, it must be based on a real creator. Attacking what’s on the foundation leaves the foundation intact. It’s then ripe for rebuilding when what’s on it is destroyed. Religion can, all by itself (without the insults of atheists) become quite corrupt and broken-down. But, the foundation allows for rebuilding and starting anew.

      3. If a vine was spoiling your garden and causing your plants either to die or grow around it…

        The vine is not some magical, sky daddy. Ubi is talking about something real as opposed to something imaginary.

        God is not “the vine”. People’s willingness to obey the dictates of organized religion without question is “the vine”.

        Religion (which is very real) is the vine.

        God is not the vine? Yes, he is.

        Nope.

        I don’t believe in statements, propositi…

        You are not getting this. Ubi is talking about organized religion.

        I’m an atheist, and I really don’t spend time thinking about god. I do spend rather a lot of time thinking about god’s fan clubs, especially when they behave badly.

  2. “Atheists read the Bible, they send their children to church, they talk…”

    Ah, the gift that keeps on giving….

    “Atheists read the Kali-Santāraṇa Upaniṣad , they send…..

    ************************************
    No more substitutional mockery, Cedric!
    ************************************
    (Comment edited by by Admin)

    , Atheists!

  3. Thank you Cedric, you got it. My analogy is about faith and religion, not god.

    The original post claimed that atheists “hate god”. This is a common thing we hear from christians, but it simply isnt true. Most of us don’t hate god any more than we hate Santa Claus or Krishna or Batman or Robin Hood. I hate what people do to other people because of their belief in a god. (If a Hindu does something awful to another Hindu in the name of Hinduism, should we blame Shiva and hate Ganesh? I don’t think so, we should blame their belief in Hinduism.) Religion is, indeed, the problem.

    Now I ask the christians, why is it that you need “atheists just hate god” to be true? Why do you keep saying this, when it’s not the case? Does the fact that somebody can live in our religion-soaked society and still not have a god-belief make you uneasy? Does the fact that I don’t believe in your invisible friend threaten or undermine your belief in some way? Is faith so fragile that it can’t stand up against the simple existence of non-faith?

    1. Ubi,

      I wouldn’t listen to cedric if I were you. I tried to let him teach me once and found out that he was fond of the same circular thinking that lunatics are. I asked him how it is that we are to know what exists or does not exist, and he said, “If someone claims the existence of something then they have to provide evidence.” I then asked him to follow the dictates of his own claim and provide evidence that his statement is true. I found out he has no evidence for it, but he sure loves repeating it. He then said, That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” I don’t know if he thought that would back up his claim, but it did the opposite. His second claim gave me grounds to dismiss his first because he provided no evidence for it. As far as I can tell, he thinks people should provide evidence for their claims because… and get this…. people should provide evidence for their claims. It’s as circular as the moon.

      Now, I don’t need atheists to hate God. I talk with an atheist regularly who doesn’t believe in God and is fine with the logical absurdities in his reasoning. He thinks that people who talk about religion incessantly and desire everyone to be religionless aren’t TRUE atheists. But, those are his words, and I would not go that far. I look at atheists who dont’ hate God and don’t excoriate others for their beliefs, and I look at those who do. I wonder what the reason for it is, and I think it’s truly plausible that they hate God, especially for the suffering they’ve went through (and most of it at the hands of religious people). Calling God different names is just a way to avoid the issue. The Christian God is the one that claims to be good and allows evil and suffering in the world. It’s pointless to be mad at a god who doesn’t make that claim, whether it be vishnu or whoever. Attacking religion is like attacking Hydra, the many headed snake. Until you kill the root, the heads are free to grow back.

      1. Cedric is the one making sense here, Claims require evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.You can play word games and call that circular, but it’s still the best way to sort out what’s plausible and what isn’t. Lacking that, you could wind up believing everything you are told by anybody, which I hope you don’t do.

        The root of religion is the human brain, so there is no way to “kill the root” and rid ourselves of religion permamently. But I’d like to see its power and influence decline. Not because someone is trying to stamp it out, but because people are voluntarily discarding it as they realize they don’t need it any more.

        You say you know one atheist. I’d recommend getting to know a lot more of us before you go around saying “atheists just hate god”. Because I know a lot of atheists, and I don’t hear any of them saying they are “mad at god”. (Some of them say they went through a phase of being mad at god during their deconversion, before they figured out god wasn’t there. But now they are just mad at religion, what it did to them, and what they went through to get out of it.)

      2. “Cedric is the one making sense here”

        No. He’s just the one who lines up with your collection of atheist slogans for which there is no evidence.

      3. Now you’re asking for evidence. I thought that you said requiring evidence was a circular argument?

      4. You’re playing logical word games, which doesn’t help anybody work out what’s real and what’s not.

        I figure out what things are plausible and what I believe is correct based on the evidence I have. Apparently you have some “better” method to figure out what to believe. What’s your method for figuring out correct answers, if it’s not based on evidence?

  4. The original post claimed that atheists “hate god”. This is a common thing we hear from christians, but it simply isnt true. Most of us don’t hate god any more than we hate Santa Claus or Krishna or Batman or Robin Hood.

    You need to be careful, Ubi.
    Keep that up and you too will be censored under the title “No more substitutional mockery”.

    Dan, you can make it disappear from your blog but not from reality itself.
    Not even faux-algebra can help you.

  5. I wouldn’t listen to cedric if I were you. I tried to let him teach me once and found out that he was…

    Rather than create your own version of events, wouldn’t it be more reasonable to just provide the link to the discussion and let Ubi judge for themselves? I’m very happy with the way that conversation went.
    Go on. Provide the link. It won’t hurt that much.

    Now, I don’t need atheists to hate God.

    Then why create strawmen?

    I talk with an atheist regularly who doesn’t believe in God and is fine with the logical absurdities in his reasoning.

    Is that what this mystery atheist really said? How odd.

    He thinks that people who talk about religion incessantly and desire everyone to be religionless aren’t TRUE atheists.

    Is that what this mystery athiest really said? How odd. What does he think is a “true” atheist?

    I look at atheists who dont’ hate God…

    That would be…all of them.
    You can’t hate something you don’t believe in the first place.
    Think about it.
    It’s silly.
    Do you hate fairies? I’m guessing…no.

    Calling God different names is just a way to avoid the issue.

    (…facepalm…)

    That’s not what is happening.
    Instead of just deleting my words, how about reading them for a change?
    I haven’t called your god by different names at all.
    I’ve taken your assumptions and applied them to different cases.
    It’s very different.

    “Calling Batman different names is just a way of avoiding the issue.”

    Spot the really basic problem. Come on. Try!

    The Christian God is the one that claims….

    No. Your brand name god is not making any claims at all. People are making claims on it’s behalf. Big difference. Really big difference.

    It’s pointless to be mad at a god who doesn’t make that claim…

    No. Atheists, Hindus, Sihks, Janists etc are not mad at Batman.
    Nor are they mad at your brand name.
    Nor are they mad at the Loch Ness Monster.
    The reason why they are not mad at either your brand name god or Batman or the Loch Ness Monster is the same.
    Think about it.

    (And no, it’s got nothing to do with the claims that Batman makes. Honest.)

    Attacking religion is like attacking Hydra, the many headed snake. Until you kill the root, the heads are free to grow back.

    Religion exists without the help of magical, invisible people. There is no magic root.
    Think of a “false religion”.
    Ok? You have one? Good.

    (…deep breath…)

    It’s fake. There no magical being behind it. The priests that take money in it’s name are spongers and frauds. The faithful that worship it are being conned. The religion is real. The money made is real. The claims are not.

    Now think of a totally different religion. Say, I dunno, a dead one from South America.
    Ok?

    (…deep breath…)

    That one was a load of crap too. Just like the first one you picked. All those people died for nothing. Nice architecture in the temples? Sure…but it was a crock.

    “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

    There’s this thing called the burden of proof. Word games will not make it go away. Your brand name religion is no better that any other.

    The burden of proof

    1. I’ve been reading these posts…I’m the “mystery athiest…i work with dan and me and him go back and forth on the subject of religion. I believe there is nothing because growing up I was bright up baptist and as i was getting older it occurred to me all religions are the same…just a form of mass control. Is all bard around a supreme being (s) that tell you you will go to this place if your good and that place if your bad. I don’t see why everyone is getting so worked up. I have no problem with people believing in whatever they want. I just don’t follow trends. Now for what i think a true athiest is…simple someone who has no belief and doesn’t get butt hurt over someone wanting to learn and question his belief. Sure i can’t tell you how the world was made..i wasnt around back then. But i can tell you fighting over whose religion or noon religion is better or should be discarded as false is like having pissing contest with both holding water hoses….it won’t stop.

  6. Now for what i think a true athiest is…simple someone who has no belief and doesn’t get butt hurt over someone….

    Even if someone does get butt hurt over someone else doing or not doing something, that does not meant that they are not an atheist.

    Atheists come in all shapes and sizes. There is no “worldview”. No handbook. No dogma. No set of rules. No minimum standards. No books you have to read. No leaders you must follow. No days of the week to set aside. No politicians you must vote for.

    You and I might meet face to face and get along famously well or we might take an instant dislike to each other. It’s impossible to tell.
    Atheists don’t necessarily have anything in common with each other.
    The only thing about being an atheist that “officially” makes you one is that you don’t accept the claims for the other guy’s magical friend in the sky.
    That’s it.
    Nothing else.

    ….wanting to learn and question his belief.

    If someone wants to learn and question their belief (however, whatever it is) then I have no problem with that. Nor do I see why anyone else should.

    But i can tell you fighting over whose religion or noon religion is better or should be discarded as false is like having pissing contest with both holding water hoses….it won’t stop.

    I care about what is real.
    I care about people being ripped off in the name of religion. I care about the damage that religion does to my society because I happen to live there.
    That’s not because I’m an atheist. That’s just because I’m me.

    One can be an atheist and not give a damn about the truth. One can be an atheist and not give a damn about faith healers killing children. One can be an atheist and not give a damn about homosexuals. Or pedophile priests. Or female genital mutilation. Or the twisting of history for political purposes. Or women’s rights.
    Maybe you care about these things or maybe you don’t.
    I don’t know.
    I know nothing about you.
    It doesn’t make you any more or less of an atheist either way.

    I also care about things like the burden of proof.
    Religion does not get some special exemption.

    Examining claims and pointing out that there is no evidence for them is basic critical thinking and taking an active interest in the truth.
    Religions die. They can be stopped just like any other cult – big or small.
    Nothing stops religion like the Internet.

    The Internet: Where religions come to die

    1. (Sigh) OK, one more time….
      Where is the evidence there are no Leprechauns?
      Where is the evidence there is no Tooth Fairy?
      Where is the evidence there is no invisible dragon in my garage?
      Where is the evidence there is no teapot in orbit around the sun?

      We don’t claim “There is no god”. We say “You claim there is one, and you have not supported that claim with evidence. Therefore we do not accept your claim at this time.”

      Without a standard like that, you would need to accept that every crazy thing anybody tells you is true until proven false, which I hope you don’t do.

      1. Poe? I don’t get it.

        As it is, I don’t see a logical connection between these two statements:

        1. “I cannot prove God doesn’t exist.”

        2. “Therefore, all religions should be eliminated.”

        It’s an irrational leap.

      2. Dan, do you mean you don’t think that was an example of a “Poe” or that you are unfamiliar with the term “Poe’s Law”?

        And who is saying that all religions should be eliminated? Certainly not me. I’d like to see them decline in power and influence, that’s for sure. i’d like to religions collapse because people grow up, realize they no longer need them, and walk away of their own volition. I’d like to see reduction of the unearned privilege religions claim in society. And i’d like to see churches have to obey all the same rules other charitable institutions have to obey or lose their tax exemptions

        Trying to eliminate religion would be pointless, because it would never work. Not until we develop a vaccine against it anyway.

  7. And who is saying that all religions should be eliminated?

    Indeed. Ubi speaks for me also.
    Constructive dialogue would go much better if you just read what we write.

    Don’t just make stuff up from your own imagination and personal biases and then add “Atheists think…”

    Don’t add on or paraphrase or assume or guess or insert or twist anything of your own. If you read something that an atheist wrote and you feel that it’s logical to extrapolate something from that then…ask first.
    Maybe that’s not what they mean at all.

    I talk with an atheist regularly who doesn’t believe in God and is fine with the logical absurdities in his reasoning.

    If they are logically absurd then faithfully and honestly quote them in all their logically absurd glory. Let the lurker judge for themselves how absurd they are.
    Could an atheist have logical absurdities?
    Sure.
    That would not somehow disqualify them from being an atheist.
    One could be an atheist and have really bad reasoning behind it.

    I imagine the same could be said for Muslims too.

    “Q: Why do you believe in Allah?
    A: Well, my mother told me to”

    Yep, that bad reasoning.

    The original post claimed that atheists “hate god”.

    If this claim was true then quote atheists saying this. Put up their youtube videos. Quote from their books. I don’t see how an atheist can hate something that they don’t accept in the first place. It’s silly.
    It boggles the mind.

    I don’t do it. Ubi doesn’t do it.
    I don’t think bestairguitarer does it either.
    Dawkins, Hitchens, Grayling, Harris, Dennett, etc have never said this in anything I have read from them. Can you find or quote anyone claiming to be an atheist who actually said this at all? Really?

    It’s a cliched thing for religious people to say but I don’t think it’s grounded in reality. It’s a strawman as far as I know. Yet it comes up again and again and again and again on the internet. It’s a waste of everybody’s time.

    The “Straw Man” Fallacy

  8. I don’t believe in religion for the sake of religion. It doesn’t stand on itself. I don’t believe in belief in God. I believe in God. Religion stands or falls with him. And what you believe about God affects your entire life. If I believe God is One, then I will join the cruel children of the lonely God who dwell in the deserts under the blazing hot sun and come forth with their scimitars to lay waste to the world, for it’s not good that God should be alone. Therefore, all the world should be annexed to him. If I believe in many gods, I will join the confused children of the disagreeing gods who cannot provide one way for them to live. If I believe everything is God or a piece of God, then I join the apathetic children who are God themselves and who cannot make sense of vice and virtue, for if they do it, God does it.

    If I believe in the triune God, I am stilled by that deep mystery of community within God, and how He gave up a part of himself to join the suffering of mankind and walk with them, and I join the children of the loving God who live for the sake of love.

    The identity of God affects how we live. And for some people to be told by believers that God says homosexuality is an abomination, or fornication is a sin, or abortion is wrong, or that God hates divorce, it affects their view of God. They think he is an unreasonable and hateful God who doesn’t want them to enjoy life. And when the children of God abuse their positions and hurt others God’s identity is tarnished. Who would want an abusive God? But his children do these things in his name.

    But, I can understand how you would not direct your anger at him. Looking at him is liking trying to look at the sun. One must avert their eyes for fear of losing their sight. It’s easier to look at the moon that reflects the sun’s rays. And one can even understand not liking it, for as many people as it has inspired to love, it has as many that it has inspired to become lunatics. But, the moon is reflecting the source and cannot shine of itself. So are the believers in God who reflect the source of light. Claiming that the source of their religion is the brain is like claiming that the source of light in the moon comes from its substance.

    Now, when I see that atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist but attack instead the actions of believers and think a reduction in the influence of religion so that it becomes benign is a good thing, and think the world would be better off without without religion, I think there is more going on than just disbelief. It’s an emotional reaction, not a rational one. For you rationally cannot say that belief in him is bad because you cannot say that God, for sure, doesn’t exist.

    1. I believe in God. Religion stands or falls with him.

      Aum Shinrikyo? Sikhism? Umbanda? Voodoo? Ibo?

      But, I can understand how you would not direct your anger at him.

      The whole business of not hating something that you don’t accept in the first place and how silly the idea is just flew right over you.
      Hmm.

      Claiming that the source of their religion is the brain is like claiming that the source of light in the moon comes from its substance.

      Scientology? Janism? Efik? Hopi? Tengrism?

      Now, when I see that atheists can’t prove God doesn’t exist…

      Burden of proof. How many ways does it need to be explained to you before it sinks in?

      For you rationally cannot say that belief in him is bad because you cannot say that God, for sure, doesn’t exist.

      Thor? Xenu? Sky Woman? Batman? Nergal? Baal? Imotep? Yul-ryeo? Mihr? Bathala?

      ATHEIST!!!!!!!

  9. A response to “the ‘Straw Man’ fallacy”:

    Re-imagining the object of contention, as to weaken said object in the minds of those skeptical concerning said object, allows for an easier win in the minds of skeptics concerning said object.

    Oh. Oh, the irony.

    1. You capture the argument well. Their illiberal materialist doctrine limits them. It won’t let them acknowledge the true foundation of Christianity. Thus, when they go to attack religion, they have to redefine it into some nebulous term which in turn allows them to call it delusional. It turns out not even religious people have “religion” as they define it. Yet, their motivation for the attack is an emotional one. Their view of God, their undersatnding of what kind of God he is, affects how they live their lives. That fact is sometimes more evident in an atheists life than a Christians because they can’t let the issues die. They can’t let go. Their hatred binds them.

      Cedric, How long are you not going to get this? How long will you willfully misunderstand? Your “truth” that stands on itself blinds you. It is the result of pride.

      1. “Their view of God…”

        Which actually is “god is imaginary.”

        “…their undersatnding of what kind of God he is”

        Which is irrelevant, because as above,” god is imaginary.”

        “…affects how they live their lives.”

        Damn straight it does. We live our lives based on taking personal responsibility for our own actions. We don’t credit “god” for the good, we don’t blame “satan” for the bad. We don’t think any invisible power is going to come bail us out if we mess up, or give us forgiveness if we harm another human being. All we have is one short life, one small planet, and each other, so we’d better not screw it up.

        How is that “pride”?

        Whereas the christians think their all-powerful god created this vast universe just for them and takes a daily and personal interest in them. They think that believing really hard in their version of an invisible man in the sky will get them an eternal reward, and everyone who disagrees with them will be punished forever. And they act like this makes them superior to everybody else, and entitled to push everybody else around. How is that not pride?

    1. Thanks, I’ve used the handle for awhile now.

      How to screw things up? Let’s see – how about squandering our limited natural resources and polluting our environment, because god wouldn’t let us destroy ourselves and besides the rapture is coming any day now, so we don’t have to worry, right?

      Or, treating a group of people as less worthy because they don’t share your gender, or skin color, or ethnic origin, or sexual preference, or supernatural beliefs, and feeling entitled to discriminate against that group as a result.

      Or starting a war because “god wants it”.

      Or putting an unethical person in a position of tremendous power because “god wants it”.

      Or suppressing your own common sense and decency in favor of the arbitrary rules laid down by a mideastern bronze-age tribe, and thereby supporting any of the above.

      That’ll do for a start.

      1. Sure. Forgetting that we are social creatures and mutually dependent on each other and this planet. Putting your own personal needs and wants so far ahead of the needs of others that you harm our society and other people. Wasting resources out of selfishness. Starting wars for no good reason. Discrimination (as above) for any reason other than religion. Putting an unethical person in a position of power because they have charisma, or money. Deciding that you are better than everybody else for any reason other than religion. Letting any ideology trump empathy and compassion.

        I personally care about what kind of world I live in, and what kind of world my children and their children and their children will live in. I don’t know if you care about that, but that’s why it matters to me.

      2. I do not claim these things do not matter, for the record. I only mean to stress that there appears to be a moral understanding in culture, or as C.S. Lewis said, “a Law of Nature.” This law does not appear to have roots in a system born purely out of “survival of the fittest.” Any ultimate good derived from billions of years of natural selection would have to be defined simply as survival at any cost.

        Look, I agree about the issues of pride you mentioned earlier. There is no doubt that hypocrisy exists among religious folks, as with any organized group. All I have to say in response is, I had to be saved from something. Hypocrisy, or immorality of any kind is not a part of God, but it is a part of humanity. That very simple delineation between the two causes me to look up expecting there to be a perfection that I have not attained unto, which I believe must exist simply because I know that in me there is a gap between what I am and what perfection must be.

        Right or wrong, those are my beliefs. I find them refreshing in that I believe perfection understands imperfection enough to have mercy upon it.

      3. “Suvival at any cost” might be the rule for a species that is not social. (Do tigers need morals?). But since we have evolved to be social, since we need each other for survival, we have to balance the cost. People who are unable to cooperate and function with other people don’t survive well. For a human, being evolutionarily “fit” means being able to find the right balance between agression and cooperation for the particular enviroment you live in.

        I can aspire to be better than I am, and aspire for humanity to become better than it is. But I don’t think that “perfection” must necessarily exist. It might be cool if it did, but my wishing for things to be true does not make them true.

      4. Well, I understand what you’re saying. Still, I think some of the most interesting questions in life are about perfection.

        Why is it that we know we are imperfect?
        Why is it that we desire perfection? Or, why is it that we desire the existence of a perfect, loving being?

        What has informed us of these concepts?

        We can certainly talk about social constructs. In my mind, a quote from philosopher, writer C.S. Lewis provides some interesting perspective on these issues. I know I’ve mentioned him before. I admit I do love his work. He says things in a way I have struggled to say them, but as yet couldn’t.

        “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

      5. In my mind, a quote from philosopher, writer C.S. Lewis provides some…

        No.192: ARGUMENT FROM C.S. LEWIS
        (1) C.S. Lewis had a lot of good arguments in favor of Christianity … at least that’s what all my Christian friends tell me.
        (2) C.S. Lewis wrote some popular books too!
        (3) So anything C.S. Lewis said must be right!
        (4) Therefore, God Exists.

        “I believe in Christianity as I believe…

        Ah, the gift that keeps on giving.

        “I believe in Moromonism as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

        “I believe in Scientology as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

        “I believe in magic as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

  10. God’s inaction here is indistinguishable from him not caring at all, or not being powerful at all, or not being present at all, or not knowing anything at all.

    No hatred here. Irony? Sure.

    In fact, his inaction leads us to think he doesn’t exist at all.

    God doesn’t exist? Gosh.

    David Hume suggested a line of argument that works very well here. If an Omni-God exists then….

    David Hume. Not well known for hating imaginary, magical beings way up in the sky.

    For believers to rhetorically ask how we know God doesn’t intervene in other cases, the fact that he didn’t intervene here, there, and so many many times elsewhere is strong evidence he doesn’t act at all.

    No hatred here.

    But God was silent just exactly as if he doesn’t exist at all.

    Still nothing hate-based.

    So I put it to you. Either God’s activity in our world is indistinguishable from his non-existence or he does not answer prayers.

    Dan, where’s the “they clearly hate him” bit?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s