…we’re alienated from God…

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “…we’re alienated from God…

  1. Alternatively: there’s no gods, no deities, no cosmic forces taking care of us, and the world is broken because we refuse to acknowledge that. Could be fixing things. But I suppose the thousands of years, of prayer failing, isn’t enough to disprove it’s affectivity. Good for you for not quitting.

    • We will have to agree to disagree with your primary assertion; I do agree with you on your secondary, though – that we not just could be, but should be, fixing things. IMHO God expects us to work and expects us to do what we can to get along with our neighbors. You say, “…the thousands of years, of prayer failing…” how do you know it failed? How do you know that it wasn’t just a ‘NO’ from God? Or that there wasn’t amorally sufficient reason for what happened? Also, man has a nasty habit of expecting to receive things for no labor & no work & no cost to himself; man doesn’t even want to give of himself to his fellow man. I appreciate your comment “…for not quitting.” I won’t stop until my dying breath. We as the species of man can do much more than we actually are in order to help out our fellow man and to make things better here on this planet. Godspeed, Louis!

  2. I’ve seen the results of people unpoisoned by superstition, not crippled by the insentience it forces. I attest their accomplishments to facing the ugly truths composing life and themselves. Their choice not to hide in comforting delusions, but accept that pain which accompanies control .

    And I, myself, am one of those people. You might be inclined to attest my maturity to your particular deity: I am what I am through the misfortunes which have plagued my life, in combination with the resources available to grow stronger from them. I, however, take responsibility for it – as I do with the mistakes I’ve made.

    I overcame the negative influences which molded, and repeatedly broke me. In that process, I saw many of forms of insanity. Superstition is one of the simpler forms – that’s why those taxed by it remain functional, and can be cured. I doubt your god not because I have proof of it’s nonexistence, but because I have proof of flaws in the human condition which allow, even promote, our self-destruction.

    Below is my precomposed view on religion. You’ll find it both fair and generous – I even, consistently, promote religion. I abhor superstition in all forms, however. The chance that molded me molded the world’s current religions to superstition. You, your kin, and me, are products of chance. I pity you, but I sympathize – knowing how treacherous the mind can be.

    I genuinely wish you the best, even if you don’t like what defines that “best”.

    https://mentallurgy.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/religion-the-good-and-bad/

    • Unpoisoned, superstition, insentience, hide in comforting delusions…you act like this was forced upon me and that I have no control over myself. WOW! Nor do I make any of my own choices in my life. You indicate, based upon your own words, that there is no proof based upon reason, historical, archaeological, anthropological, or otherwise available to lead a person to think in a manner other than your way.

      You also indicate through your words, by inference on my part, which I (and others like me, fellow believers in the Christ) cannot possibly learn from my misfortunes, failures, and triumphs in this life. I beg to differ with you; I do live in the here and now and maintain hope for the future. I will fail daily in one form or manner and I will learn from them. The differences being that I draw guidance and inspiration from something much larger than myself.

      You said, “I doubt your god not because I have proof of it’s nonexistence, but because I have proof of flaws in the human condition which allow, even promote, our self-destruction.” This is interesting that you would disbelieve in a God, not because of the proof, or lack thereof, concerning it’s (or His) existence, but rather on the flaws of the human condition…that one single flaw that you condemn God into non-existence for is, in my opinion, the greatest of all gifts that He did give us: FREEWILL. The freedom to choose. The freedom to think. The freedom to believe, or not believe, in God. Either someone such as yourself is condemning God for giving man freewill, or someone else is condemning God for not making man a drone of some sort. Believing we are products of chance is just as reasonable that a dictionary was created by an explosion at a word factory, or a Cheverolet automobile was just slapped together without any forethought – and it worked. You need not pity me because I have a belief that something far greater than we all created me, or you, or anyone else. I am not stifled in any way…man stifles and condemns himself by either the foolish things he does or by claiming that man, himself, is the greatest of creatures and there is nothing greater than he. In my opinion, God gave us this great gift because He desired man, His creation, to choose to honor, believe in and follow Him. Not by force, but by choice.

      I can agree with you that the mind is a treacherous thing, if improperly used, even the bible is in agreement with you on this (“…the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth…” ~Genesis 8:21) And I will take that one step further that man has proven himself to be an unworthy beast to wield such power; but in that same breath, there are great men out there who do great things despite the very arrogant nature of man.

      I do find it odd where you wrote of “…the negative influences to society, that religions, which revolve around delusion…” in your ‘Religion the Good and the Bad’, which is not that far off from GWF Hagel’s “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”, which was later used by Karl Marx. And yet you wrote of “Through metacognition, will yourself to control the fear. Avoid the entire self-deception pattern, and you can develop deeper understanding, and control of yourself. Then, try to be happy while enduring life’s bullshit… I think, through years of practice and a life demanding it, I’ve developed this ability.” In Paradigm Primer. If metacognition is “cognition about cognition”, “thinking about thinking”, or “knowing about knowing” – you are, in effect, speaking in terms of a philosophy of thought or life or how to live; that being said, it is for all intents and purposes doing the same thing as you assert religions do (i.e., create a delusion) by instructing one how to live or view life. Please tell me, how does such a delusion from metacognition differ from religious tenets? I am intrigued, as both are an extension of one’s will: metacognition infers a reconditioning and therefore changes one’s will and religion produces tenets to live by and faith in a Higher Power (God) whom we are guided by which also is a change of one’s will. Both promote a reconditioning of the mind to live differently – metacognition by a more relative standard and religion by a moral standard.

  3. Honestly, I often prefer arguing with the religious over arguing with academics and scientists. Academics often lack imagination, they thoughtless digest what’s given to them, without question – they don’t need to think, give then extensive supporting evidence. Whereas the religious lack the massive network of evidence, and so require imagination to defend their opinions.

    But you bring up a problem that I constantly run into. People almost invariably interpret my opinions, of the mentally unstable, to mean that those people are -inalterably- unstable. At the core of my paradigm is my history of having, overcoming, and being strengthened by, mental illness. So, I suppose, I always assume people share the same perspective. Stupid of me.

    Suppose I’ll have to start clarifying on that, and the next point. If you read the “paradigm primer”, on the homepage or in the paradigm section, did I specify that I acknowledge all my thoughts to be assumptions? I don’t think I’ve, on the site, clarified that I also see the entire body of scientific study to, also, be nothing but a working theory – also assumptions.

    The difference between my assumptions and those of the religious are very simple. I should also note that atheists invariably, and many “scientists” do the same, as the religious. They all treat their assumptions as facts. I do not. Acknowledging that I know nothing allows me to accurately assess all information.

    And you seem to be leaning on the common argument that religion is the only means throughwhich to achieve morality? Another omission on my site that needs be remedied. Morality is as simple as two or more people agreeing to behave objectively, to not prefer the subjective biases of one or the other – which causes unfairness.

    Therefore, seeking rationality, researching and discovering the true laws which define the universe, then applying them, is morality. Of course there’s the variable of what to do when we don’t know those laws. Well, work with what we got. The point is – religion has no claim on morality. The moralities that religion dictates are based common sense – rationality.

    As for free will. That’s.. a tedious subject. Let’s leave at this. Gravity, the needs of your body for food, air shelter, the finite patterns of your mind and body, the absurdly gargantuan quantities of information we process. All this chains us. Our choices, within that very narrow scope, are quite meaningless. Add to that logic dictating that there is always a, single, best way to reach happiness, and the subject of free will becomes nearly irrelevant.

    ——————– On a side note, can you tell me about Hagel? I’ve always detested philosophers who have no talent for concise explanation, so I’ve never spent time mulling through his opinions. But people won’t shut up about him, and Kant, and Descartes. Gotta be something important there.

    • Does your hypocrisy know no bounds? I am happy for your high sense of self; however, thus far you have not truly answered, nor have you asked anything that required any evidentiary pleading. With your sense of ever learning you will never come to a knowledge of truth with such high mindedness. And while I disagree with your assertion that the religious “…lack the massive network of evidence…”, as you put it, YOU have given no actual proof of such; which makes it no more than a personal opinion. In my opinion, there is much out there, but so many brush it off as meaningless because it doesn’t agree with their worldview or agenda. Thus far, you have proven nothing!

      You know, language is funny like that! I have always believed that one should say what they mean and mean what they say, otherwise you leave too much ambiguity to be interpreted wrongly. I made the assumption that you did so; therefore, any misinterpretation is on you for lack of doing what you should have in the beginning of this conversation. Which tells me that any dialogue with you is, in-fact, disingenuous & one sided. Regardless of whether you stated all that you wrote in “Paradigm Primer” as being all assumptions – by writing it as part of a writing it is generally presupposed that it is your position & belief. You cannot have it both ways…when you choose to sit on a fence and waiver between the two sides when you choose to do so or when you it suits you IS one of many proofs that you are disingenuous in your dialogue.

      It is plain that you assert that all others “…treat their assumptions as fact…”, but have yet to produce any proof of such an assertion. Have you sought clarification…or just assumed? Perhaps, they treated it as fact due to eyewitness account(s), or one of many other verification processes. But to be fair to you I can agree with you that, “Acknowledging that I know nothing allows me to accurately assess all information.” But if your writings are assumptions, your words not mine, then what exactly did you assess? You simply sat on the fence to sway from one position to another at your whim and desire…another proof to your elaborate lack of genuineness in your writings.

      I lean on the proofs of my youth, readings, writings, and research throughout my life that the tenets of the Christian faith (the following of the Christ) are the true and only way to God and the foundation to all morality and ethical behavior. Let’s not trivialize that which I believe, because you choose not to! Consider this:
      • Two or more people can decide it is right & moral to take everything you own & place you into a prison camp because it is the right thing to do (Hitler vs. the Jews; 4-6 Million dead); or,
      • Two or more decided that you were a danger to the newly created regime (Stalin vs. the Russian people, 40 Million dead); or,
      • Etc. I could go on, but why?
      Your version of morality is based on consensus and with a presupposition that there is no moral lawgiver and can be changed anytime it suits the people when they decide they want other people’s things. My version of ethics and morals is based upon the existence of a moral lawgiver, which presupposes something far greater than ourselves and is both never changing and ever present.

      Your statement and definition of ‘universal morality’ is, in other words, a blathering ambiguity that gives license to all the people decide & design their own ‘mix-n-match’ morals and ethics – thus, rendering all morals and ethics to be relativistic to the individual. (If morals and ethics are, therefore, relativistic to the individual, how then can anyone be guilty of committing a crime? In your made up world they cannot be as each would be “whole and full of integrity” towards his/her beliefs.) Therefore, your consensus laden world is thereby wiped out by reality! I also find it rather strange that you write off “Freewill” because it is “tedious” & “meaningless”, but you believe “…researching and discovering the true laws which define the universe, then applying them…” to be such an easy task to accomplish, while you simply give way to your relativistic world, once again. Yet, once again, this is another proof to your disingenuous bantering.

      I do find your comment, “I’ve always detested philosophers who have no talent for concise explanation…” hilariously hypocritical! One of the definitions of “Philosopher” is “a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields.” This is, in effect, what you have done throughout this diatribe & dialogue. You have presented very ambiguous answers (or non-answers, really) with broad strokes of interpretations, chastised those who improperly interpret your speech all without ever giving any evidence one way or the other. You have never clarified anything which was sought…you just added another broad stroke to your repertoire of bantering.

      You have, in effect, wiped out the sciences, logic, psychology, psychiatry, and many others (but not mentioned due to brevity.) The PRINCIPLE OF NON-CONTRADICTION is something which is an assumption from metaphysics and is carried on into many other fields of study. It states that, in essence, nothing can be and not be at the same time. Now it is all gone…through you! You have proven yourself to be a walking contradiction. You may believe that which you are saying, but you don’t seem to grasp the contradictions which you speak! There are many New Age speakers this way, as well, one in particular speaks in metaphysics and when challenged he turns to speaking in physics and upon his being challenged again he talks in quasi-religious-Hinduistic terms…

      This, because of your disingenuous dialogue, will be my last episode to this drama, as you have proven who you really are…another of many who wants the entire world to hear him, but nothing to say!

      Godspeed, Louis!

  4. True. Within that post, I did not elaborate upon empirical reasoning being viable in the absence of certainty. [And have yet to throughout the site.] But then, you seem to estimate yourself capable of reason, and empirical methodology is the very foundation of reason. My apologies for assuming you would make the connection.

    Empirical reasoning does not require certainty on any subject to function – it does not require comforting absolutes. So, while admitting myself uncertain, I can nevertheless attempt to build a connected body of knowledge. I simply change my perspectives with the evidence. The evidence currently dictates that I know nothing, as do you.

    And while we’re on the subject, I’ve been shown the motives, for belief, of many religious people withwhom I’ve conversed. They, consistently, reveal a random mishmash of coincidences. Once they’ve done so, once their thoughts are no longer in repressable format, they usually leave the conversation. Try writing down your reasons.

    Oh, and I’ll explain morality within the context of my philosophy eventually. I’d rather do it on the site than here, as it’s just be inefficient otherwise. I genuinely wish you well, but I also wish you silence – the inability to weaken our kin. Misery loves company. Why not practice in silence?

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