I hate death. It's the final enemy. The older I get the more I think this way. I hope in the future people really can live to be 160 years old with their minds who can be productive in their final years. I hope someday that if we have an incurable disease we can be frozen and later revived and then healed so we can see the future. I hate the fact that I'll never see what human beings have done on this planet in 100 or 200 or 1,000 years. I hate the fact that I'll never see my Dad again. I hate it. My stepfather of about eighteen years has just been given two weeks to live. Maybe the doctors are wrong. But I'm here in Indiana. He and my Mom are in Nevada. I may never talk to him again. He's only responding with touch right now. He's 80 years old.
We are mere mortals. This life is all we have. It's mere delusion to think otherwise. But knowing the truth hurts. What would actually hurt more is to think there is a God who is punishing him with death because of what some curious bastards did in some Garden. What would actually hurt more is to think he'll end up in hell. Since he is a liberal Presbyterian some Christians think he will. I raise my middle finger to people like that and to their concept of God. And I raise it to death itself.
86 comments:
John,
I'm very sorry to hear about your step-father. My deepest sympathies are with you and your family.
I can't wait to read how our local theists (Rob R and MMM specifically) will assure us all that your honest observation is proof to their Jesus superstitions.
Sorry to hear about your step dad man, that sucks.
Be good to yourself and I hope you will be able to employ your insight as a comfort to your mom.
Peace
raise my middle finger to people like that and to their concept of God. And I raise it to death itself.
In short, atheism leaves you with no contentment with either the ultimate reality claims you reject nor the ones that you embrace.
On one of the most important issues of our existence, it is profoundly and supremely useless.
You claim to just follow the rational path to the truth (even though it hurts), but to us, this failure is itself an irrationality.
Sorry to hear about your step dad... I'm sure it's a tough time, and thus why believers assert there are no atheists in fox holes... but feel good thoughts don't change the cold hard facts, which you know.
My wish for you is that your friends and family bind together in comfort as you walk through this.
Rob, did you ever see the movie Toy Story produced by Disney? Buzz Lightyear was delusional in thinking he could fly, but he was happy. Remember? But he could not fly and he could've gotten killed in trying. Then he learned the truth. He could NOT fly and he became depressed at first. Then he came to grips with it and still ended up as a hero afterall. There are benefits in ignorance (as well as risks). But I prefer to plant my feet on the solid ground of what is true even though what I think does not offer me the hope you have. Wishful thinking is one of the reasons you believe. I prefer to know the truth. It's better over here.
Rob R,
Thanks for illustrating once again the hypocrisy of religion.
You use the occasion of one sharing an intimate death to defensively promote your theology.
Good work man. Very mature.
Below is an example of the difference in moral efficacy between your imaginary world and observable fact. I received this in my mail today regarding a project I am working on. Pay close attention to the latter paragraphs. Science is willing to admit when its proposed solutions don't work. Are you?
March 01, 2010
Actelion's Tracleer fails to meet goal of Phase III study
by Matthew Dennis
Last Updated:March 01, 2010 10:04
Actelion announced Monday that initial results from a late-stage study indicate that Tracleer (bosentan) did not meet the trial's primary endpoint of a reduction in morbidity and mortality in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). CEO Jean-Paul Clozel noted that the results "do not support initiating regulatory proceedings," in this indication and the drugmaker said no further studies with Tracleer in IPF will be performed.
Actelion had expected that sales of the drug, which reached 1.5 billion Swiss francs ($1.4 billion) in 2009 on total company sales of $1.7 billion ($1.6 billion), would have doubled if it was approved for the treatment of IPF. The drugmaker’s shares fell 14 percent on the news. Helvea analyst Olav Zilian commented that the data from the BUILD-3 study "is so weak that we do not believe that doctors will consider using the drug off-label in these severely sick patients."
Tracleer is approved worldwide for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension, as well as in the EU and other territories for the reduction of digital ulcers in patients with systemic scleroderma.
Interesting metaphor. Buzz light year had wings and a jet pack. He knew what these entailed, and yet, they were lies. We too sense that we are created for transcendence. But whether we choose to believe that we are a lie or not, it is a choice and no proof immeadiately available all of us can settle it one way or another. Faith is the necessary step in either way. I refuse to have faith that our human significance and worth and ultimately our transcendence is a lie like buzz light years wings and jet pack, granted recognizing our own wings are broken. But that doesn't mean that were never intended to fly.
Rob R,
"But that doesn't mean that were never intended to fly."
Okay, show us how your Jesus superstitions help you "fly". You are making a poor showing of it here when communicating with a man facing the death of a loved one.
Yes, Rob, some us big kids can sleep in the dark, some kiddies still need the nightlight on. Enjoy your security blankie - but it all ends the same for all of us.
Or ...
"It's a simple logical
fallacy to think that because
something is comforting it is
therefore true. The universe
doesn't owe you comfort."
Richard Dawkins.
@Rob R... reality isn't always comforting. Constructing delusions (in the clinical sense) to be happy about terrible events isn't a healthy way to deal with them. There is a lot about life that we shouldn't be content with (hence all the effort in curing lethal childhood diseases).
The same mutations that have helped forge the gamut of life's variety are constantly killing us as well.
The same equilibrium of trade offs between resources and efficiency that sculpt our life cycles to be as long as they are left longevity as a fluke. Our modern society has helped make it the norm in short order (relative to evolutionary time) and now must of us live long enough to endure the failure of systems adapted for the most bang for their buck in shorter life spans... teeth, hips, spine, joint material, eyes, prostates, bladders, etc etc etc.
All of this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. From a "design" perspective the "maker" appears drunk at the wheel, especially when one starts looking at all of the organs that evolved to compensate for other shortcomings.
So, yes, I'm sure deluding myself would make me feel better about losing my grandfather who was a de facto father to me. But on his death bed he was still terrified of hell over mistakes in his life.
Some comfort! All you got is snake oil, not rationality.
The problem Rob, is you will never know you were wrong to believe in these fairy tales. For if you maintain your faith until you die you'll never again gain consciousness to know that you were wrong. Pity. I wish you could. I wish the guys who flew planes into buildings would wake up at least once to know they were completely ignorant to throw away the only lives they had.
John,
And Rob will never know contentment in his belief because it is predicated on the world sharing a brain with him.
He fails to see the narcissism and confirmation bias in his worldview.
Sad.
Too many people think that death by aging is some profound and immutable reality we're stuck with. It isn't. It's just a biomedical engineering problem to be worked out, like eradicating smallpox.
John, you might want to take a look at this book, if you haven't already.
I just skimmed the link for now, but this is awesome! Should we have ourselves frozen now for the future? Wow! What a thought!
We look at death and we reel with horror at the prospect of our own non-existence and the non-existence of our loved ones and we begin to question all of life and its meaning. It again draws upon the ultimate question of why we are here on this planet.
For John, my sympathy goes out to you. I feel your pain as I have a grandmother in a similar state.
For the atheist, I believe the answer to that ultimate question is this. It was mere circumstances that brought us here and eventually we shall return to organic matter. And, by circumstance, be made into another animal or human and again have existence as another being. There is no reason and therefore we should enjoy this life as it comes.
For the Christian I believe it does offer at least answers to those questions. Both Atheism and Christianity can be thought of as delusions, it just depends on which person you ask, therefore I like to think of neither as one, just a belief system.
I think creation and its complexity speaks for itself in showing us a divine presence in creation. Beyond that, there must be an eternal originator to give life for anything to exist that is non-eternal (i.e. the universe).
For the Christian, life’s meaning is to have a relationship with God, both in this world and in the next. All of life in both places is based off of that. Sins entrance into humanity has brought death, destruction, and a void separating us from God. It is our sin that separates us from God. God could theoretically keep us from sinning however that would be removing freedom from us to choose Him or other things. We so often choose other things over Him. Eventually, he calls upon us less and less and we reject him for other things. However, at any moment, when we call upon Him, he welcomes us back through Christ. If Christianity is true, God welcomes us in our brokenness, at the cost of crucifying his own son on the cross for us.
Surely no one will know the reality of death and the afterlife until it is finally upon them. Between now and then, we must all choose and continually ask ourselves these question: is truth relative or a reality? Is God, God? Is the afterlife plausible? Who can we trust to give us the best possible answers? Is there proof for any of this? Eventually, we must all put our faith in something.
John,
I join you in flipping a giant middle finger to death. I don't know how better to articulate how I share your feelings other than... I'm sorry, too. This is truly sad, and a great reminder. We all share the same fate (regardless of what we do and do not believe in). You and your family are on my mind.
--Justin
Adam
You realize you are preaching to people who for the most part Christians. We all know systematic theology. We conclude it is self centered superstition that never examines its self-contradictory morality (e.g. The Penal Substitionary Theory of Atonement). I heard everything you spout when I attended church. It is partly why I became an atheist.
Rob R,
You only want to have believe in that which makes you feel good.
Sometimes, reality just isn't something that will make you feel warm and fuzzy. Like the reality of losing a loved one.
It's a sad thing, but why should the sadness of losing a loved on be the reason to end our journey of seeking the truth, and instead embrace faith of the unproven simply because it's a story that might make us feel good?
You see what I mean? You're taking this single sad instance of reality and asking that we throw away all of the rest of it, which to us includes many GOOD things.
We can be sad about the cold truths of our reality. We can mourn about it, for as much time as we need. Then we can pick up and continue learning about our reality, including other negatives, and positives.
BTW, I know people of all religious faiths cry at the funerals of their loved ones. Religious people mourn all the time. In light of your comments here, I want to you explain why religious people cry at funerals.
John.
I had a grandmother who recently passed away, she was 86 years old. She lived a long decent life, but was definitely not a religious person!
So i can sympathize a little with how you probably feel. I still have troubles with it when it comes to my mind.
But just because christians will gladly except the belief in hell in order to also except their belief in heaven, it doesn't mean we have to!
I would gladly sacrifice the existence of heaven (if there is such) in order for there to be no hell either!
The opposite of christians! Which side is more humane and self sacrificial?
Heaven is easy to believe in until a loved dies, then the unfairness of that doctrine makes you want to puke!
I dont, i cant believe in that!
I meant to say, "For the most part once were Christians." My comment towards Adam makes more sense.
John,
The problem Rob, is you will never know you were wrong to believe in these fairy tales. For if you maintain your faith until you die you'll never again gain consciousness to know that you were wrong.
If you are right, when I'm dead, where is the misfortune? It won't be perceived by me. Sure it will matter a very small amount to others, but not when they are dead.
Atheism has no basis for the intrinsic value of truth for the dead(and even for the living, it is sketchy), so where lies the tragedy? You say it is a pity that I may never know your alleged truth, but one day, you will not have this pity and it won't matter that you ever had it as you specifically are concerned when you return to dust.
That not knowing your alleged truth if true is some tragedy is itself the illusion that will evaporate when not a single human exists... and well long before then when our memory is forgotten.
Tragedy is only a feature which persons or at least semi-personal beings have, and the idea of tragedy without persons is nonsense. So the percieved end of our personhood is either a tragedy or a temporary illusion. I choose to trust this perception and thus a narrative of the ultimate everlasting personal being fits this evidence better than your picture.
That said, I'm sorry for your step father and the coming loss of his presence will be a real tragedy. But if there is rebellion in his life for which he was convicted (made responsible) and did not submit to the grace of God, you have done him no good, but that he is a "liberal" Christian really doesn't strongly indicate that one way or the other and that some Christians think that label in and of itself is indicative of God's judgment or mercy doesn't really matter. This is the dichotomy of your former evangelicalism which continues to blind you.
Andre (and others who expressed similar ideas),
Dawkins doesn't get it that our sense of meaning and what is meaningful (which has more depth than the overly simplistic description of what is comforting and what isn't since it arises from that which is even most grievous to us as well as that which brings us joy) is one of the most important facets of our existence, our universe that needs good explanation. And he doesn't have it nor does his naive positivism provide any logically consistent grounds from which to criticize those who say that there is more to this world than natural science or reductive materialism can ever tell us. The idea that that meaning should somehow be supported via the scientific method is itself an untestable unprovable assertion which science is inept at supporting.
Rob,
You don't have an explanation either. Can't you see that son?
You assume that an atheist cannot see life as intrinsic, meaningful, wonderful and pure simply because he disagrees with the fact he must first see himself as depraved to enjoy these qualities.
I don't need god to be good or happy.
You need me to agree with you for you to truly embrace the latter.
It is sad.
@Rob R... you essentially gave a run down of your fears of being forgotten and why you cling to your wishful thinking. You call for explanation and rely on the inexplicable. You mock those that rely on what can be tested and observed while offering nothing but fantasy as an alternative.
You enjoy your fantasies. You need your fantasies. Your fantasies make sense to you within the construct of those fantasies. Like a good math proof your presuppositions guide the outcome of your derivations.
But to claim you are the one on solid footing because of that is no better than a mathematician presupposing a function that solves everything. He can show example after example, for example how if you enter x+5=2, that f(x+5=2)=3! He can claim that even the unsolved problems have and do have solutions via the solve everything function!
But it doesn't actually explain anything. It's true because he presupposes it to be true. And it is only true in concept. It has absolutely no application to reality. It's a philosophical thought experiment at best. And as is obvious to everyone else here, your god is no different.
I think Rob is closer to atheism than he cares to admit.
His arguments and tortured logic remind me of me before I rejected Christianity for the ancient myth it is.
John: Should we have ourselves frozen now for the future?
Depends on your age, but I wouldn't be so inclined. The technology involved is estimated by people in the field to be only about 20 years away, and with the acceleration of progress due to the growth of computer processing power, it could actually be sooner. I'm 49 and I expect it to be well in time for me.
I've always been on the side of "Do not go gentle". It's not that death or non-existence are so fearful in themselves, but I don't want my experience of life to come to an end, and I want to see the future.
You assume that an atheist cannot see life as intrinsic, meaningful, wonderful
Oh no chuck. I would never claim that. And I haven't.
Glock,
you essentially gave a run down of your fears of being forgotten and why you cling to your wishful thinking.
Actually, I agreed with John Loftus on the tragedy of failing to grasp truth though the truth claim he embraces has no basis for this tragedy. John and I agree on something. But who has a better basis for that agreement?
Adam: It was mere circumstances that brought us here and eventually we shall return to organic matter. And, by circumstance, be made into another animal or human and again have existence as another being.
That would be meaningless for the same reason that reincarnation would be meaningless. If I die and some other entity comes into existence which has no memory of being me, then it is not me, not in any meaningful sense.
I can assure you that atheists don't think in such terms.
No atheist is happy about the prospect of death being the end, i think. We simply accept that our being unhappy about something does not make it false.
Religion deals with this problem by embracing fantasies of an afterlife which are supported by no evidence. I look to technology to solve the problem (see previous comments) as it has solved so many others.
Rob R - thank you for your words, for they have helped me exert less strain in contemplating the atheist perspective. Those things most grievous as well as those that bring joy ...music to my ears when the sound of gnashing teeth is so prevalent.
Rob you said,
"Oh no chuck. I would never claim that. And I haven't."
And you said,
"In short, atheism leaves you with no contentment with either the ultimate reality claims you reject nor the ones that you embrace."
Either you are a liar or can't see the contradiction in terms due to your delusional world-view.
Rob you said,
"But who has a better basis for that agreement?"
And herein lies the rub with your worldview. Why can't you hold your delusions as necessary for you? Why do you have to assert that you are correct?
This is narcissism Rob, plain and simple and it is a necessary variable for one to feel justified in holding christian belief. The whole purpose for christians is to convince innocent people that they are depraved and then offer them a tortured philosophy that plays upon the self-hatred they've inculcated.
You can see it in Double A's comments and self-perception of martyrdom. Double A, why does the atheist perspective cause you stress? Where is the cognitive dissonacne coming from?
The Atheist perspective is simply this-there is no factual evidence or existence of a heaven or a hell to human knowledge.
There is no factual evidence for the existence of any god.
There is no real trustworthy evidence for jesus resurrection or him being a sacrifice for sins, nor many biblical claims!
So therefore, Atheists do not believe in what is not known to be real!
They simply believe in what is known to be real!
Why should any person be obligated to believe in something that is so unbelievable in the human experience?
I never seen jesus rise from the dead i was not there, i have never seen any person rise from the dead!
But according to christians- if i dont believe the testamony of a small group of people 2000 years ago in a time of superstitious belief, testamonies that bear names of people that scholars dont even think really recorded them- then i cant be saved!
What kind of rationality is this people?
Well said Shane.
And you forget to add, Christians get a very real sense of their own worth by convincing people that this story is the only true story in reality and that it is the most essential one must know.
Crazy-making wouldn't you say?
So therefore, Atheists do not believe in what is not known to be real!
They simply believe in what is known to be real!
Shane, if this is true, then atheism is an incredibly gross oversimplification that takes for granted what constitutes reality as well as what constitutes knowledge.
I never seen jesus rise from the dead i was not there, i have never seen any person rise from the dead!
I have never seen a quark or an electron nor any of those elements at the very end of the periodic table. Actually no one has. Only a select few individuals with a high degree of skill and with instrumentation that only they fully (or mostly) understand have constructed elaborate systems of explanations to the end that these entities are asserted.
If you have to verify everything for yourself, even science cannot qualify as knowledge. but we embrace them because those who have told these stories have made medical advancement and modern comforts avaliable. They work to a degree (except where they conflict). We in the church embrace the gospels because they too have worked both on a personal level and a historical level to redeem lives and bring about a better world. And when it doesn't work, we have every reason to note just as the technician would note that we were not fully faithful to the principles of a device that has malfunctioned due to human error, the principles of Christianity often have also been abused and have led to failure.
It works pragmatically, it works for explanation of matters that are universal that relate to human worth and moral understanding. We don't have everything figured out and there are some problems. The same is true with science.
But according to christians- if i dont believe the testamony of a small group of people 2000 years ago in a time of superstitious belief, testamonies that bear names of people that scholars dont even think really recorded them- then i cant be saved!
If salvation is to live in harmony with God, of course you can't be saved if you refuse to even believe in that harmony. Of course it's not as if salvation was merely or even wholly constitutive of who escapes judgement. Cornelius pleased God even before Peter said he was saved. The difference between salvation and Cornelius' unsaved state is the discipleship of growing in knowledge of God through the teachings, life, death, and resurection of Jesus.
(on the side, scholars are divided about who recorded those books and ancient authorship isn't even exactly like modern authorship).
Rob R: I have never seen a quark or an electron nor any of those elements at the very end of the periodic table. Actually no one has. Only a select few individuals with a high degree of skill and with instrumentation that only they fully (or mostly) understand have constructed elaborate systems of explanations to the end that these entities are asserted.
The evidence for quarks and electrons rests on experiments which can be reproduced by anyone with the necessary equipment. Scientists anywhere in the world, of any culture, can do the same experiments and get the same results. Scientists in America, Russia, Japan, India, or wherever can do science on the same basis and obtain valid results, regardless of what their ancestral beliefs were.
God, Jesus, Heaven, and all the rest of it rest on no evidence at all -- they are only traditional beliefs. There is no objective experiment anyone could describe to verify them that Hindu, Buddhist, Shintoist, atheist etc. scientists could also do and obtain the same proof. Thus religious beliefs vary more or less randomly from culture to culture, while scientific facts are recognized everywhere.
Rob,
It is special pleading for you to compare the Gospel with Science and not invoke the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
Science can be forgiven for their historic stumbles and appeal to pragmatism because it never claims an exclusive relationship with the third person of the Triune God.
Christianity is not as lucky.
You assume the authority of an in-dwelt god in your corporal body and a spirit-breathed book as your doctrine yet, wish for us to forgive your faith for the incredible blunders it has made.
I would forgive those blunders if you would be honest enough to admit that your theology is a human construct and does not have the advantage of being counseled by the Holy Spirit but, to do that would mean you would admit that your faith is not absolutely true.
John,
So sorry to hear about your step-dad. I've been reading your blog and books for nearly a couple years now, so I feel like I've got to know you. My heart goes out to you.
Toby
The evidence for quarks and electrons rests on experiments which can be reproduced by anyone with the necessary equipment.
Right, anyone with the necessary equipment, which excludes the vast majority of us.
Scientists anywhere in the world, of any culture,
And again, the other restriction. Those with the training, also a very small minority (a minority within a minority as not all scientists are trained to do such a thing. and never could be a practical majority.
Thus the requirement of individualistic verification that shane spoke of, again, would invalidate science.
God, Jesus, Heaven, and all the rest of it rest on no evidence at all -- they are only traditional beliefs.
no, no evidence at all, except scripture, tradition, experience (including personal experience), many other texts of the time, sociological studies, linguistic considerations, archaelogical considerations and universal human considerations such as our belief in morality, beauty, ethics, and so on. No, we've got nothing to work with, except considerations that in any other light would be considered very substantial from all areas of life.
There is no objective experiment
for many things we believe, like an external reality. And that's okay. It's only an uncritical modernist who would think that objectivity provided the only means to truth.
Thus religious beliefs vary more or less randomly from culture to culture,
I geuss that means that they can't all be right. I can live with that. They could all be wrong, but there's no good reason to start there as if anyone truly could start from a neutral position.
while scientific facts are recognized everywhere.
While the nature of a fact itself is a matter of controversy, and facts are often theory laden where the theory determines the nature of the fact, not the other way around.
Rob,
Take a step back and re-read what you wrote.
Are you really trying to equate the fractured theology of multiple christianities with unified theories in science and, are you appealing to the same extreme level of incredulity found in solipsism to do it?
And you think this argument helps anyone consider your perspective?
Who or what does this honor outside of your own ego demonstrated in the idiosyncratic "open theism" you practice?
None of the evidence you give provides useful means to solving the world's problems.
You can say it does all you want.
Provide some observable examples where the objective evidence you claim has led to an expansion in liberty or prosperity? (I can already hear the answer to this, "We need to consider that liberty and prosperty need not be the transcendent wings we shall flap to announce the most epistemically veridical knowledge beyond our packed intestines.")
Rob R "I geuss that means that they can't all be right. I can live with that. They could all be wrong, but there's no good reason to start there as if anyone truly could start from a neutral position."
Hey Rob... you're really stretching on that one to try and logically argue that starting with a presupposition of Christianity is somehow proof for God.
Your life is your own Rob... live it... don't worry about convincing others the truth you've found in your enlightenment...learn from your Calvinist brothers, there will simply be those who do not accept your mythology... in which case don't sweat it, you get the joy of "knowing" they'll be roasted in Hell... hoorah.
As an aside...your quark and electron analogy... I've never seen an Alien either but there are thousands who would swear as strong a testimony for Alien Abduction as those for the Resurrection... Do you believe in Aliens?
I'll share this thought here because it fits the topic...
"I don't believe people are looking for the meaning of life as much as they are looking for the experience of being alive."-Joseph Campbell
Again peace to you John as you go through this, hopefully you can truly share the joy of living with your friends and family.
Dan,
Rob will vehemently deny he is a Calvinist and will instead give a long-winded (probably in multi-part explanation) of his idiosyncratic faith (cribbed from NT Wright and William Lane Craig) based on "Open Theism". When you read it you will come away recognizing him for what he is, a Calvinist.
Dan: I've never seen an Alien either but there are thousands who would swear as strong a testimony for Alien Abduction as those for the Resurrection... Do you believe in Aliens?
Hey, I saw Alien Resurrection. If Sigourney Weaver believes in them, that's good enough for me.:-)
Oh and he will use the royal "we" when explaining his theology.
Blogger Dan DeMura said..."Sorry to hear about your step dad... I'm sure it's a tough time, and thus why believers assert there are no atheists in fox holes... but feel good thoughts don't change the cold hard facts, which you know.
My wish for you is that your friends and family bind together in comfort as you walk through this."
Hi Dan, i agree with what you said.
John sorry to hear this sad news about your step dad,i send my condolences to you and the family.
I think Dan really hit the nail on the head and i echo what he said,"My wish for you is that your friends and family bind together in comfort as you walk through this"
Its why family and community relationships are so very important to humanity,its a big part of our coping and survival mechanism.A mechanism that faiths have to often splintered and divided.Its the memories living on in the future that helped us to make death not seem so much like some complete dead end,and these memories are best cultivated by treating family and community as being whats thought most worthy of our respect.
What is so amazing about the dogma of the Christian belief in an after life (in some an eternal Heaven) is that it is so selectively accepted while the other equally emphatic statements made by Jesus in the Gospels are known to be false and have been proven so.
There many false promises in the Gospels, but one verse will suffice here: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. (John 14: 12-14)
Ye not a single Christian in recorded history has ever had this amount of mustard seed faith, let alone done works greater than those of Jesus of the Gospels!
Even after 1 - 3 years of being directly taught by Jesus himself, the Apostles did not even understand who he was nor what exactly he was up to (The Gospels depict a Jesus often complaining about this himself and the disillusionment and desertion by the Apostles at the crucifixion is the apex of their faith just as the Gospels plainly prove.)
But despite this blatantly and overtly failed promise for wonder working miracles in John 14 from the Gospel lips of Jesus himself, Christians cherry pick another futuristic promise of Jesus that also has no credibility (other than some vague and conflicting stories concocted by people claiming to have been dead) about Heaven or Hell.
In short Christians, let me put it like this:
Jesus lied to you once (John 14: 12-14): Shame on him. But when Jesus lies to you again and you choose to believe his promise of Heaven; SHAME ON YOU!!!
The believer thinks they will have an eternity with their people, so they leave things unsaid and undone. They thank God for good things that happen to them instead of the people that caused the good thing. They assume the person who had dies will not end but have an eternal life.
Instead, if we give up the myth of god and soul, we might more closely connect with people we love, tell them more often how much they mean to us, ask them more questions about their lives and their thoughts, thank them for the things they do for us and the indirect ways they influence us. And when they are gone, in order to assure them some 'meaning', instead of waiting to reunite with them, we might ponder the things we valued about them and try to be more like them in those ways, we might look at their children and children's children for those good traits and reinforce those traits by telling stories about the departed one. Facing the facts might lead us to living more fully with the people we love and living more fully in the present with them, and knowing they are gone and that we will NOT see them again might lead us to more purposeful incorporation of the good that we saw in them into our own lives and might lead us to pass that on to others.
And if there were to turn out to actually be some afterlife, what was the harm? The lack of belief in this case seems to lead to life lived better.
It looks like Rob took his epistemology and went home.
Knocking us off like dust on his feet and probably stewing in his controlling rage.
The world we be a much better place when control freaks like him stop declaring themselves, "good".
I just got back and trying to catch up on Rob's thread.
That guy has his own little theology going...lol...he could start his own denomination.
Thats if people could understand half the concepts he tries to give!
Oh, gentle Jesus meek and mild, please come and lie to me awhile.
[It’s truly sad, but a reality to realize that Jesus is himself the Judas for the Christian faithful.]
Hey everyone, today he felt strong enough to listen to me. My Mom called from his bedside and I talked to him. All he could do was say "hey" or "ahh." I told him what I was doing and he always liked knowing what was going on in Indiana since he taught school his whole life nearby. Afterward I just cried. He is such a good man. He could build anything since that's what he did during the summer when on break from school. And he was good to my Mom after my Dad died. Those years are all gone now. If he dies I will hurt for Mom. She'll have suffered through the deaths of two husbands now, and I two fathers. I'm crying now.
I personally do not fear death but I hate it this much.
Death is a bitch motherfucker.
My house is full of projects that my dad helped on. Some days I celebrate that I have that part of him and other days it makes me miss him.
John, you may not like it, but your family will be in my prayers. I'm sorry that you are going through this now.
But reading what you said, I have a hard time believing that you believe of your father what you said of me, that you'd find it tragic if he doesn't become an atheist before the end.
Rob wrote: But whether we choose to believe that we are a lie or not, it is a choice and no proof immeadiately available all of us can settle it one way or another. Faith is the necessary step in either way.
First, If God exists, it would be trivial for him to provide observations which collaborate your claims. It's not that proof does not exist, but that God would manipulating us by acting in ways that could be interpreted as random chance, etc.
Second, you're implying that theistic faith is on equal footing with science regarding claims about reality, which is false. The problem of induction was solved by Karl Popper several years ago.
Claims such as our "wings" were broken some time in the past are claims about actual events, which are open to scientific scrutiny.
I have never seen a quark or an electron nor any of those elements at the very end of the periodic table. Actually no one has.
Nor has anyone directly "seen" letters on a piece of paper. The entire process is several steps removed by the complex process of reflecting photons, their impact on our retinas, which is converted into electrical impulses which are interpreted by specific parts of our brain into letters words and sentences. Everything is conjecture, but we have good reason to think there is an external reality: it's by far the best explanation.
The current theory of quantum physics includes the existence of quarks because they provide the best explanation of phenomenon we observe. Not merely because we "prefer" quarks over some other explanation which makes the same predictions.
If you have to verify everything for yourself, even science cannot qualify as knowledge.
Where did Shane suggest that his personal observation needed to be made specifically by himself for something to be factual? It seems you've jumped to a conclusion that wasn't necessary being made. This seems to be a red herring.
We in the church embrace the gospels because they too have worked both on a personal level and a historical level to redeem lives and bring about a better world.
Any theory can make any prediction that is logically possible. It might be that the earth is surrounded by a giant planetarium that projects the motions of the heavens for our display. It could capture radio waves and return them as if they bounced off distant planets and simulate supernovas as if they followed the same laws of physics we observe on earth. It could intercept astronauts as they leave orbit and return them carrying fake moon rocks, simulated video footage and implanted false memories. Both the theory that there is a vast universe beyond earth and that we are merely surround by a giant planetarium makes the very same predictions. The key difference is the explanations behind these theories.
Thus the requirement of individualistic verification that shane spoke of, again, would invalidate science.
Again, where did Shane make the claim that his personal verification was required?
Shane wrote: I never seen jesus rise from the dead i was not there, i have never seen any person rise from the dead!
But according to christians- if i dont believe the testamony of a small group of people 2000 years ago in a time of superstitious belief, testamonies that bear names of people that scholars dont even think really recorded them- then i cant be saved!
If I may, it appears that Shane was noting it was irrational for one group of people to suggest his personal eternal fate would be based on his acceptance of an exceptional claim which he himself had not observed. While you might think this is reasonable, it appears that Shane does not, as there are other groups who claim there is a different and conflicting set of requirements for salvation. To prefer one theistic claims over another, when neither provide significantly more collaborating evidence and rely on bad explanations, appears to be the irrationality Shane is referring to.
Dan,
Hey Rob... you're really stretching on that one to try and logically argue that starting with a presupposition of Christianity is somehow proof for God.
I find that as a stretch of interpreting what I said.
learn from your Calvinist brothers, there will simply be those who do not accept your mythology
Of course there will, but that does not mean that I am not to follow Christs teaching to spread the gospel.
"I don't believe people are looking for the meaning of life as much as they are looking for the experience of being alive."-Joseph Campbell
I don't think this is a good dichotomy. Human wholeness entails both.
John,
I am very sorry to hear about your
step-father.
We know that you love him and that you would like him to be comforted during this time of need.
Strength be with you and your mom and the rest of your family during this difficult and sad time.
Michael
John wrote: I personally do not fear death but I hate it this much.
I have similar feelings. I do not fear the prospect of ceasing to exist. It's the suffering it can cause (before and after) that concerns me most.
My sympathies to you and your family.
Second, you're implying that theistic faith is on equal footing with science regarding claims about reality, which is false. The problem of induction was solved by Karl Popper several years ago.
Some solution! According to him, we could never confirm theories and know them to be true for sure. We can only know that they are false if they are disproven by one counterexample. And Kuhn came along and pointed out that Popper didn't really understand that theories (mega-theories, theories that organize and provide the structure for smaller scale theories, also called paradigms) often run into contrary data yet they continue to be believed because the the contrary data may eventually be explained by the theory or even if there isn't such as explanation, the theory still holds sway because it explains much else and nothing better is there to replace it.
Claims such as our "wings" were broken some time in the past are claims about actual events, which are open to scientific scrutiny.
John Loftus would disagree with you on the investigatability of the past. See his posts on Lessing's ditch.
That we are broken though isn't a matter of being able to identify a specific historical event on the terms of modern historical investigation. Rather, it's a matter of how well the narrative fits what we know of humanity, so incredible in it's achievements in art, science, technology, literature, archetecture. So deep in the value and intense love and bonding that we have for each other and the acts of heroism and compassion that we know. So God like in these, yet so horrific in our brutalities, so tragic in our fragility and so grieved about our mortality. That we are the gods that polytheists or new agers suggest doesn't fit this picture quite well. That we are nothing but chemical reactions sloshing about as materialistists suggest is even less fitting. That we are creatures designed in the pattern of the infinite God fits perfectly.
Everything is conjecture, but we have good reason to think there is an external reality: it's by far the best explanation.
The current theory of quantum physics includes the existence of quarks because they provide the best explanation of phenomenon we observe.
yes, this is a good pattern for many investigations. And so I contend that Christianity also makes the best explanation for our existence that cannot be reduced to the material.
Where did Shane suggest that his personal observation needed to be made specifically by himself for something to be factual? It seems you've jumped to a conclusion that wasn't necessary being made. This seems to be a red herring.
Shane suggested an irrationality to expect him to be responsible for truths that he personally didn't verify. I didn't really directly address exactly that angle after all. But what I said was relevent. A scientist is after all to be responsible to know much that he does not personally verify.
If I may, it appears that Shane was noting it was irrational for one group of people to suggest his personal eternal fate would be based on his acceptance of an exceptional claim which he himself had not observed.
Whether it is exceptional or not is a subjective judgement. If the Holy spirit has convicted shane, then there is nothing irrational at all about this expectation.
there are other groups who claim there is a different and conflicting set of requirements for salvation.
If they are Christian groups even if they are as far out as JW's and maybe even mormon's, the central requirement is the same, following Jesus. Now all the unhelpful junk that may play a problematic role needs to be dealt with through prayer and use of our brians. That is the way it ought to be in a faith that requires to give of ourselves completely. And we have resources to do so in scripture, in tradtion, experience, reason, and so on.
It takes a dedication beyond any rational justification to put that much effort into being entirely vacuous. Blathering endlessly to say nothing at all.
Rob R... you continue to obfuscate, evade, and avoid so you can cling to super-santa. It's excruciating to watch. I'm sure some hack, just like yourself, helped keep my grandfather in fear to his last dying breath in spite of his fulfilled and otherwise happy life.
You seem to think you're shining light on the issues, but you're just muddying the water. And from the smell, that ain't mud.
Rob said: I have a hard time believing that you believe of your father what you said of me, that you'd find it tragic if he doesn't become an atheist before the end.
My stepfather was really excited when I told him I accepted evolution years back. Before that I was a fundamentalist who didn't. We talked about it but he never wore his religion on his sleeve. Liberals are first and foremost human beings. They have no evangelistic fervor. They recognize they don't have the answers and they allow people to be, well, people. Many liberals signed the Humanist Manifesto's if you have heard of those two documents. He and I had much more in common than you and I when it comes to religion. It's only people who claim so profusely to have most all of the answers I wish they would learn upon death that they were wrong, ya see.
I will probably change my mind pretty quick when Old Man Death knocks on my bedroom door, but I don't really see death as "The Final Enemy". Doesn't death make life worthwhile? Think of the absolute tedium of immortality, of a hevvuns foreverever. Good god man, there must be an end to it all some time. Doesn't the inevitable end make the road there all the more special?
In the west we are very hung up about death. Being dead is like being unborn.
Or (shudder) do some of us still harbour a wee bit of doubt about standing in front of Loving Jebus, with the Thick Book of Naughtiness open in front of him, looking at us over his glasses and going "Woweeeeee, what have we here?"
John, I am really sorry to hear about your stepfather. It must be awful.
Rob R.
Put it this way, if you were told that you must believe that a magic lamp with a genie inside was found in 50's, because a small group of people claimed to have seen it. Yet all they provided was some hearsay knowledge 60 years after the fact, and that knowledge was recorded in their journals, would you believe on that much evidence?
Would it be more likely that they were lying about it for personal gain, or that they were mistaken, or that the truth just got blown out of proportion, rather then it really being true?
Shane,
All one need do is look at the Roswell incident.
I doubt Rob is passionate about the reality of alien corpses in New Mexico.
chuck.
Of course not, because according to the bible we are the only one's created in Gods image on a speck in a universe with hundreds of thousands of galaxies.
Plus God would have said so too right?
Rob wrote: Some solution! According to him, we could never confirm theories and know them to be true for sure....
And Kuhn came along and pointed out that...the theory still holds sway because it explains much else and nothing better is there to replace it.
Was absolutely "know[ing] [things] to be true for sure" the problem of induction? No. The problem was whether we were justified in using past observations to predict future events.
Perhaps this is how you see the problem? But this doesn't mean that is the actual problem of induction or that it's reasonable to assume we can know anything to be true for sure.
Claims such as our "wings" were broken some time in the past are claims about actual events, which are open to scientific scrutiny.
John Loftus would disagree with you on the investigatability of the past. See his posts on Lessing's ditch.
Rob, human beings either were created in a form where death did not occur, or there were not. There are a number of ways that such a theory could be collaborated by science. Furthermore, you must present an explanation as to why human beings would be created without death, but, through some specific event, suddenly start dying. Comparing explanations between rival theories is a critical part of how science works.
Rather, it's a matter of how well the narrative fits what we know of humanity, so incredible in it's achievements in art, science, technology, literature, architecture.
Rob, narratives are not necessarily explanations. They are often literary in nature. What "sounds" good and what is a good explanation are two very different things.
And so I contend that Christianity also makes the best explanation for our existence that cannot be reduced to the material.
Among rival theologies or among all rival theories? Christianity is untenable as it presents explanations that are easy to vary. It lacks explanations and attempts to give accounts instead. That one theology is a better explanation than another is often a case of cultural or geographical acceptance.
Whether it is exceptional or not is a subjective judgement. If the Holy spirit has convicted shane, then there is nothing irrational at all about this expectation.
The problem is some other "spirt" is claimed to "convict" other people that there are other requirements for "salvation", which even the details definition of which varies depending on the theology.
That God would give confusing information on a subject so crucial as one's eternal soul seems very unlikely if he actually wants us to be saved. However, since this is what we observe (and therefore the theory of Christianity must also include it among it's "predictions") you must make an excuse as to why God would do this. This constant need to explain away problems is why we are justified in rejecting Christianity.
Just as the solipsist needs to constantly explain away reality reveals it too is a bad explanation and can be discarded.
And Kuhn came along and pointed out that...the theory still holds sway because it explains much else and nothing better is there to replace it.
So then how does Kuhn explain how real progress is made in scientific theories? In fact, he can't. This claim requires Kuhn to flat out deny there has been objective improvement in scientific explanations.
Essentially, growth of objective scientific knowledge cannot be explained by Kuhn's theory of science as new theories are merely evaluated in social or psychological terms, rather than objective merit which causes one to rise above it's rivals.
Take our ability to fly. This is possible because we understand reality well enough to actually build flying machines. But this wasn't always the case. Our ancestors were incapable of such feats, because their objective understanding was inferior to ours a the time. Again, if Kuhn's theory is correct, how can he explain why such an advance should have ever occurred?
Explain something to me, somebody.
It looks as if, when someone follows a good moral code, an atheist will rightfully say such a person is good.
But if to that he adds the mere expectation of there being *some* kind of judgment and afterlife after death, using the same moral code they are already in agreement with, they suddenly have a huge problem with it, and talk about how much of a danger to society it is, etc.
I see such a belief as having the same kind of positive effect on our behavior as the expectation of being rewarded or punished by a functioning society in this life. Saying we don't need one doesn't sound much different than saying we don't need a legal system "because we already know what's right."
I've never seen how believing that what you do in secret won't go unnoticed by a perfect judge can lead to anything but good.
My only problem (and I don't mean to understate this!) with organized religions is that they all seem to violate "love your neighbor" in some way. Being good *should* be good enough. But apparently it's not. Infinite punishments for not believing in specific deities whose existence can only be guessed at, etc.
It seems we should be evaluating actions based on simple, egalitarian morality, support religions/belief systems when they uphold it, and condemn them when they don't.
Here's where the religious are understandably put off by the more militant nonbelievers, because even good work they do gets ridiculed. They then conclude that atheists must be evil, and can sleep well at night, "knowing" that they're Fighting The Good Fight in all that they do - even when some of what *they* do is evil.
I read these debates all the time, and I've never really felt comfortable with either side.
At least my stomach doesn't have to turn, in the "knowledge" that my loved ones will either burn in Hell or cease to exist. I'm just making an assumption - there's nothing to debunk here, I don't think.
I think Thomas Paine's statement "a cruel god makes a cruel man" pretty much sums it up.
Belief in a good god should also make for a good man.
I can't prove squat, but I've always liked the universalists. What's there "to kill or die for" without a belief in eternal (as opposed to limited) consequences in any afterlife there may be?
While John did bring up the theological issue here that comes to light in this unfortunate situation, I do feel sheepish debating this both on and off topic as we have here in the current circumstance. I do still intend to respond to some of these other comments eventually. Out of respect for John though, I'm going to hold off on responses in this thread until John is back. Perhaps he doesn't mind and perhaps in his way of dealing with grief, he needs to engage his mind in these ways to deal with the grief or maybe it gives him a break from the grief.
Nicholas Wolterstorff noted that each death is as unique as the individual who suffers it, and we are unique in how we deal with grief.
I'd say the feeling is often mutual - and often with good reason. ;-)
Everyone likes to hush up their own worldview's problems, while putting the spotlight on everyone else's.
Gosh, that reminds me of that Muggeridge book, "Something Beautiful for God." I just know you must be running an orphanage, somewhere.
Well, I still see a lot of good in what you believe, but I reluctantly found out it doesn't all look good. I wish I had time to talk about pros and cons as I see them, since you're here now, but that will have to wait. If you don't get banned and deleted, maybe there will be another time.
Leonardo.
From what i've read here, you sound 10 times worse then any Atheist i've ever heard.
Your a prime example of old testament discrimination and bias.
And i highly doubt most christians would back up your ignorant comments here!
You make me sick!
Leonardo.
LOL....your out lunch bud...I seriously dont give a shit what you think!
Instead acting like a child why not present an intelligent argument or go cry about it somewhere else
Leonardo.
I read your posts through,..lol...what does this have to do with me?
I only responded to your initial comments.
Your story is certainly detailed, but im not sure why you inlude so much homosexual content?
I myself am not gay, i have a wife and 2 children and i certainly dont consider christians gay......?
The jokes were funny but, i dont no much about moslim custom.....where exactly are you going with this....?
It appears (from his posts (now deleted)) that “Leonardo” is a Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church fame.
Leonardo, (sometime I have to wonder) since Jesus never married, never had sex with a woman, hung out and slept with men and had a very questionable relationship with a naked young man in Mark 14:51 -52 (as also note by Morton Smith in his book: The Secret Gospel of Mark), that Jesus was not openly gay himself.
So the next time you want to use the gay community as your escape goat, lets look at the historical facts. You just might be a Christian pot calling the gay kettle black!!
So glad to hear you say this. So many people seem to have positive things to say about death; I wish more people recognised the appalling tragedy that the 150,000 deaths every day represent. Nick Bostrom's Fable of the Dragon Tyrant tries to shake people's complacency in the face of this daily massacre through analogy.
I urge you to look into cryonics, and to actually sign up if you decide there's something in it. No-one really knows whether it'll work or not so staying alive as long as possible should be your first strategy, but it's much more likely to work than you might at first guess (so long as there's a future that wants to bring us back). You can read about my investigations into it on my blog.
God does not exist.
When we die we are dead, period.
Get over it.
Post a Comment