junglecat

That definition you gave me, the one you got from that guy's blog. Can you verify it by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations? Or is it just that guy's opinion which you happen to agree with? Can I also have faith in the dictionary's definition?

Thanks for your view. Can you verify that by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations?

Thank you for your thoughtful and kind response. I understand your line of questioning. Why do I want to explore the world around me? The physical world, the world of thought? Because I have a mind. Why do you have a mind? Beats me. I don't know what you mean by belief in a divine purpose, or divinity itself. I can't be sure anyway. It might not be a terrible thing to lose, depending on how you define the words. They may just be a phantom. Especially if the belief in the divinity wouldn't change a thing about your reason for living. For me, divinity of Christ stands in stark contrast and contradiction to belief in the divinity of the god of this world, the one that brings order through violence.

I'm sorry you took such great offense. I hope we can work out our differences and you can work them out with your father as well! Thank you for the corrections. You're right. It's not only questions that invariably come from a particular perspective, it's also any declarative statement. Also, I did have the preconceived notion that all atheists do not believe in gods using the modern definition of gods. I should say that I had no preconceived notions about the moral character of atheists. Most of my good friends are atheists. I promise to never use the word 'simply' again around you. I didn't know it would trigger you so violently! About your response to my use of the word 'faith' and 'belief'- Did you really not understand what I was saying or are you telling me that your words are meaningless, that you don't believe what you are saying? If that's the case, why should I take you seriously?

Do you care to tell me the 'usual' meanings?

Can you give an example of the 'many religions' that could claim UPB as matching their moral religious principles? Certainly not Islam. Buddhism? In what way?

alpha male would say your emotion shows that this is not a conversation. What do you think? Thank you. That's very helpful. Everyone's question is biased. That just means it's coming from a particular point of view. I really didn't have any preconceived notions about atheists. I was simply putting a question out there with multiple examples. I figure when someone engages in a conversation they can give me their individual views. I would expect the same courtesy. I would say I am a Christian but I disagree radically about what many Christians believe. When people respond to me as a Christian I don't expect them to know what I think before I tell them but often they think they do and dismiss me before we even engage in conversation. I'm asking the question because I am interested in the differences in human thought. I am first of all questioning your faith, your trust in what you believe, whether that's a belief in an ideology, a rationale, a philosophy, whatever. Through understanding what others think I can better understand what I think. I am a great lover of diversity. Biological, cultural, philosophical, etc. I'm just fine with 'push back' but if it's only avoidance then I don't see how it will help my self knowledge.

I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying. When you wrote, "I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct." 1) were these your own thoughts that you wrote down? 2) does *threat* mean only a threat and no chance of violence? (an empty threat) 3) when you wrote, "We have no mechanism to directly sense or measure another's sense of justification for an activity" does that include your own thoughts on the justification for violent threats or actions? 4) when you wrote, "It doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified." does this mean that only your thoughts matter? To be objectively Christian means you share the same objectives. I would never say he is subjectively Christian, as in being a subject, as in a king to his subject, or that he has stated some verbal formula that makes him a member of a church.

You're right. If you can't see the cognitive dissonance in what you said there's not much point.

It doesn't. That's not the point. The point is you think your your use of violence is justified while at the same time saying it doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified.

Yes, and I was countering your sarcasm. I'm not talking about a deity. I have zero interest in what you think about a deity. I have yet to understand how the man's question was disingenuous. How can you read the sincerity or lack thereof? All I see is your atheistic bias and political correctness. If you're not interested in engaging the question then don't. Save me the dry analysis of what you think my intent is. Here's what happened. Let's recap. I read the original question and then read all the replies. I noticed nobody answered his question. I got a barrage of replies explaining why the question didn't matter. I rephrased the question in a secular manner giving multiple examples. Some replied that one of my examples was theistically biased and ignored the rest. One person gave me a four word answer: sadness, fear, worry, regret. "Love is not love when it is mingled with regards that stand aloof from the entire point."

There you go. You just proved my point.

No. I'm saying it's an excuse. The lie is thinking that the other guy doesn't feel justified. End your participation if you like. No one is twisting your arm.

You wrote, "I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct." This is an excuse to be violent. I'm sure you feel completely justified in what you wrote. It's still an excuse. Can you give an example of how people might use the words of Jesus as an excuse to be violent?

I sense a sort of fascistic political correctness from you and the rest in this whole exchange. Any implication that there is such a thing as theism or people who believe in that nonsense is not to be tolerated. I get it, I get it. Lighten up, Francis. So you get round to answering the question and all I get is four words. Can you elaborate? Why fear? Why Sadness? Why regret? Why worry? Fear of pain I can understand. Fear of death is strange. It's like fear of deep sleep. Why? Sadness I can understand. We all cling to a certain extent. Maybe you have dependents? Regret? I'm seriously interested in what you would have to regret. Maybe it's just a touchy subject? I don't know. I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth. Maybe you feel shy about opening up to a complete stranger. I can respect that.

I think you have theism on the brain. I think it's safe to say many people think of death as morbid, whether you're atheist or theist or any stripe. The words tend to go hand in hand. Maybe they don't for you. I'd love to know. My question is completely sincere. I brought several examples to illustrate my question. You zeroed in on one word and then added your own, "hopeless", to it. That seems disingenuous to me. It also seems disingenuous to put words into my mouth that I never intended. "you are basically saying "it must be really depressing to not believe in life after death" and my answer is "Im not going to believe in something just because it might make me feel better" No, that's not what I'm saying at all. And I am in no way asking you to believe in something for any reason. That's absurd. You could answer the question or not but please don't put words in my mouth, ok?

Oh wow! What a beautiful misunderstanding! I read dangerous instead of disingenuous and you read methinks as meth. I was actually quoting Shakespeare. Let me rephrase the original question or maybe simply ask my own: Assuming one believes in complete annihilation at death, no soul transmigration, no afterlife, etc. what kind of result does the contemplation of one's personal death bring? Does it bring sadness? Sobriety? Does one avoid the thought due to a tendency towards obsessive morbidity? Is it a genuinely meaningless venture to even contemplate it? Does one think of one's own progeny and the continuation of one's bloodline? The species in general? I remember reading Ingmar Bergman's thoughts on the subject. His early films dealt with the 'religious' question but later in life he dropped such notions and became an atheist. He said something like "Now I think of death as closing my eyes and entering an infinite dreamless sleep and that brings me great comfort." I may not have the quote perfect but that was the gist of it.

A 'dangerous' question? It frightens you that much? And nobody can answer it from an atheistic perspective? If that's the case, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks".

What is salvation in your definition? Does it include saving us from a cycle of unending violence that threatens to destroy all flesh?

Are you saying it makes no sense to contemplate one's mortality?

Wow! I read through the whole thread and not one person answered the question. The one that came closest to answering basically said 'don't think about it.' The philosophy of the ostrich. How banal. I'd choose anything but that. How about Carlos Castañeda and the awareness of one's personal death giving meaning to life, cutting away the pettiness. So much for deep thinkers.

I didn't invent anything. What I am saying about retributive violence is experiential and observable. Again, you are not engaging with the words I am saying and simply have a knee jerk reaction to them because you have long ago written off Christianity as having any explanatory value for the problem of the world's violence. If you really think you are right about this, why don't you explain your reasons instead of mocking? There is no sin save the sin I invented? That's not even funny and it's self-defeating. You can do better than that.

Ah! I found it. I forgot that your posts are hidden. No, I don't believe there's a separation the way you see it. While I agree with what you say, "humans are reconciled with God through Jesus" I think we mean two very different things with those same words much the same way Shirgall and I agree that belief in the divinity of Christ is fundamental to being a Christian but radically disagree on what those words mean. It's not that Jesus 'took the rap' for us. It's that we did to Jesus what we want to do to God. Jesus' death showed the world once and for all, that God is not angry at us and forgives unconditionally. The 'unforgivable sin' is to deny the Holy Spirit, which is the opposite of retributive violence. Retributive violence is all violence because we are mimetic beings. Violence begets violence all the way back to Cain and Abel, who founded the first city/civilization/culture. Mimetic desire goes back to the serpent. The serpent (Satan) has no corporeality, no being outside of what we give it through participation in the scapegoat mechanism. Evangelicals will say that we are all sinners and they are right, and yet they turn around and create situations where they feel their violence is justified. Jesus says 'even the elect will be fooled, if that were possible.' He also says that the saints will suffer persecution and be put to death. He never says the saints will kill the unrighteous. Secular people believe most people are good and the bad minority need to be punished and put down. In the end, both groups do the same thing. We are all going to die, every one of us. Nobody wins anything by being the last to stand.

Your previous reply was so different! I don't know of any god that denies any man the 'right' to self-defense. Certainly not the Devil. The Satanic mechanism centers on violence.

Shirgall, I get the feeling that you are not actually reading my words. Did you read when I wrote, "Also, I completely agree, a Christian is one who believes in the divinity of Christ. However, this is nonsensical taken out of the context of the ancient world where people believed in the divinity of the gods of war, the gods that use violence to contain violence."? Can you see how my question of violence relates to this? You believe violence can contain and control violence. The problem with this sort of thinking is that the people you are fighting will always feel the same way. Take WW2. There were millions of innocents killed in that war- by the winners of that war, the "good guys". Christ says that violence will never destroy violence. Satan can not cast out Satan. At least not for long. A house divided against itself can not stand. The violence will always escalate. This is precisely what we see in the world. This is what I mean by the divinity of Christ as opposed to the divinity of the "god of this world". You seem to have a knee jerk reaction against what I am saying because you can only see Christianity in terms of some abstract non-existent 'sky god' that has no relevance to anything in this world. You're missing the forest for the trees.