Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Are you aware enough to have doubts?
Gomedome, the explanation is quite simple.
The cited response was made to you after I one day returned to blogit, after having been off the blogit in excess of eight months, to find you here raving and insulting me, behind my back. That, clearly, is a practice that is indicative of a pathetic coward.
In reality, I do not truthfully think you are either pathetic or a coward; but I do think you are willing to stoop to such levels if it means preserving your iconoclastic aims.
With regard to the prevalence of rudeness, you have absolutely no argument. The threads here clearly reveal my wholehearted attempts to befriend and be nice to you, all of which have been met by your repeated sarcasm and derogatory name-calling.
posted by
telemachus
on December 8, 2006 at 12:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - Now you are backtracking on your defence in the link I provided
To refresh your memory: "I did not call you a pathetic coward, I simply said that certain practices were indicative of a pathetic coward, a big difference." Odysseus
Why don't you explain to all of us the difference between your insult which you later attempted to recant by suggesting that I misunderstood the subtlety and my supposed insult where I clearly refer to one of your specific views and not you personally? The reality is that you cannot, you want to instead insist that I am rude, then what the hell do you call your actions? Let me answer this for you: Somehow you have elevated your own self justification above and beyond any consideration of the beliefs of others. Instead of conceding that your perspective is just one person's opinion, in your world it is only your view that matters.
After all of the times that you have put disparaging words towards atheists to print. Quite often speaking in sweeping generalizations in attempts to discredit an entire segment of the populace, it turns out that you know only a handful of people that are atheists, with some being the fleeting association of online acquaintances. It probably never occurred to you that your sampling is too small to form any type of conclusions pertaining to the traits of any group but don't let this stop you. Most of us find your assertions wildly entertaining.
posted by
gomedome
on December 7, 2006 at 10:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome…..calling my opinions retarded is little different than calling
me retarded. It is certainly just as insulting. And, I’m sorry to say that the assessment that I made of you at the link you’ve posted is not without merit. After re-reading that link I must agree with you that “YOU” represent a disproportionate share of my atheist and agnostic acquaintances and clearly the typical atheist would never be as rude as you are.
I speculated initially that your rudeness was out of spite and disdain for unbelievers but I see now that it is a very pathetic defense mechanism that you employ when you have nowhere else to turn.
posted by
telemachus
on December 7, 2006 at 10:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - I did not call you retarded - but you have been outplayed at
your own game.
One of your favorite tricks is to hurl an insult in my direction and then claim that I missed the subtle implication of what you were saying, as you vehemently deny the insult. Now reread my earlier comment. I clearly suggested that it is your view of atheists that: "borders on,..... or is retarded." Not you but your view on this subject and retarded within the true definition of the word. Typically you will deny that you ever do this but don't bother; HERE is one such example, there are many more.
As to your answers about how many atheists you know, I will take your answer at face value, as it seems to me that it is a believable number. So in total, you know approximately 5 atheists and you know 2 better than the others. Additionally you know a few atheists as online acquaintances, which I will assume includes those here on Blogit. I would hope that you are a member of a number of other forums and know a great number more atheists than you have met here on Blogit. You disparage this group of people routinely, some of it very harsh. I would hate to think that a man of your age and social standing (and proclaimed spiritual awareness) would disparage any group from such a small sampling as the handful of people you claim to know. To speak in the broad negative generalizations that you do about this group while knowing just a handful of this group would simply be manufacturing one's own truth based on prejudice.
posted by
gomedome
on December 7, 2006 at 8:36 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome……really, you have no reason to call me “retarded”!
Why do you insist on this constant silliness of calling people derogatory names? Are you doing this to uphold your reputation of hardness with your groupies? There is nothing wrong with relaxing a bit and being nice. If you think this name calling somehow cloaks the fact that I’ve identified some pointed issues in your arguments, you are very wrong. People can and are reading the entire thread!
Now, to answer your questions. I know many more atheists on-line than I do in real life. In real life, I know about five, two of which I have at least weekly interaction with.
I do not consider it downgrading atheists to offer the opinion that I did in this comment, which I think is a very valid assessment. Many atheists do indeed play the iconoclast and many can be lured into attesting to, and even uplifting, a righteous and moral spirit; that is, until the word “God” is employed.
posted by
telemachus
on December 7, 2006 at 3:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - on the contrary, I am not easily offended, I would never have
survived, let alone been successful if I did not have a thick skin.
I brought up the point of "missing something" more to illustrate that you would not tolerate someone telling you this very same thing about your beliefs. Yet you expect me to somehow accept such statements. . . but when you suggest that you will attempt to be cognizant of this, that is all we can ask of another.
Now that we have the pleasantries out of the way, your view of atheists borders on retarded. You cannot possibly have based your opinions towards non believers on anything substantitive or even on reality. Instead of blathering on about things you have written your last comment I'm going to ask you a couple of pointed questions: How many atheists do you know in real life? What are you basing your retarded opinions of them on?
If you want to continually slag a group of people in our society, you should be able to answer these questions.
posted by
gomedome
on December 7, 2006 at 7:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome - You know, if nothing else has been gleaned from this
exchange, it is a greater understanding for me about how you become so easily offended, i.e. via my implications that you are somehow missing something. You consider this insulting but, really, it is quite difficult to try and explain ones perception of God to someone else without this issue surfacing. I will, however, endeavor to be more conscious of this matter in the future.
And you raise a very interesting issue here about the impacts of the “absence of the spirit”. Clearly some seem to actually possess and utilize the spirit, but simply refuse to call it God, and you may be among that group. This actually means that such people are less “an atheist” and more an “iconoclast”.
posted by
telemachus
on December 6, 2006 at 11:59 PM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - we seemed to be in agreement until you left this comment
You are going to have to accept your thinking that non believers are missing something ... is entirely your problem. If you make no attempt to curtail such an insulting assumption, I trust that you will allow me to suggest that you are missing something in life as well. (well not just something, missing a whole lot is more like it) I am aware that you attempt not to be influenced by religious constructs in your belief. How is it then that you continuously put words to print that demonstrate you have swallowed all of organized religion's propaganda, hook, line and sinker?
Your definition of God leads you to this conclusion: "The absence of this spirit produces some of the most vile and filthy characters that have ever walked upon this earth." . . oh yeah really, name one example? If you suggest that: "the absence of this spirit" is the underlying reason for the actions of some of history's most notorious and ruthless dictators, it is at best a half truth. Or if you are suggesting that this is an absolute, or in other words non believe will inevitably lead to an individual becoming a vile and filthy character; why do we not have prisons full of atheists? I could go on but what is the point? Your agendas and rigid prejudices have surfaced again.
posted by
gomedome
on December 6, 2006 at 3:37 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome - We seem to have agreement
that meditative inner reflection and concentration strengthens a person and facilitates their success.
I think that you are very correct in stating my feelings that an unbeliever is missing out on something. I have no desire to hide my feelings in that regard. But I do seek very diligently to uncover the thought processes that so influences the unbeliever.
Your use of such terminology as “unseen conscious entity” and “imaginary being”, clearly reflects the huge difference between our perspectives, as I do not discern God in this manner at all. That is why I have previously identified much popular ritual and dogma, as perhaps the greatest obstacle between you and God.
Truly, God transcends a reduction to the physical manifestations that so many, including yourself, seek to reduce it to. Clearly, God does not manifest itself to us in this manner. Conversely, God manifests himself to us in the inner spirit, in the “invigorating sense of accomplishment” that you mention, in the sweet spirit that comes when we know we’re in the proper flow of life, and in those things that we can identify as inherent truths (like integrity, compassion, etc.) God is the righteous presence that innately looms before us to pursue. God is the spirit of goodness that is about in the universe.
We construct problems for ourselves when we try to envision God as some type of space alien. Instead, we must perceive of God as God chooses to be manifest to us, as a spirit of invigoration for righteousness and as a directional sprit that uplifts basic human decency.
This sprit is not unique unto us individually. The absence of this spirit produces some of the most vile and filthy characters that have ever walked upon this earth. As a result, we clearly know that it is proper to uplift this spirit and hold it before ourselves and our acquaintances as something worthy to be pursued and believed in. But we need not riddle it with ridiculous rituals and lame superstitions. We need only elevate it as worthy in its own right, for what it truly is.
posted by
telemachus
on December 6, 2006 at 10:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - "conscious introspection" is a broad term that can mean any
form of inner examination or reflection.
I doubt that there is a successful person alive that does not engage in some form of meditative inner reflection or concentration to strengthen inner disciplines or to at least organize one's thoughts. Typically I see your contentions following the same tired lines of "reasoning" (for lack of a better word). You want to ignore all nuances of differing definition pertaining to personal experience and perception to insist that the individual who does not believe in God is of their own volition; missing out on what you claim to be experiencing. You also seem intent on ignoring the very real possibility that you yourself are missing something as a direct result of ascribing responsibility for certain aspects of our daily experiences to an unseen conscious entity. In that regard I have sympathy for people that believe in something that does not exist. Instead of experiencing the entire range of human emotions and ascribing responsibility and/or credit to themselves, they instead defer to an imaginary being. A being that if in fact existed, seems completely indifferent to human outcomes, to the point of extreme callousness. You are also missing out on the utter joy of discovery and the envigorating sense of accomplishment that comes with doing good deeds simply because one can.
posted by
gomedome
on December 6, 2006 at 7:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome....As I think you know, I stand opposed to elaborate doctrine,
superstition, theology, ritual, and intimidation tactics as commonly imposed by groups of fundamentalists. What you may not know is that I oppose these things for precisely the reason you reveal; which is because they eventually come to inhibit true perception between an individual and God. Clearly, these things are indeed a grave deterrence to you, serving only as a massive obstacle between you and God.
I also think that you will recognize that men would come to God even in the absence of existing religious embellishment. But men do have an unhealthy inclination to create ritualistic endeavors in an attempt to contort the sublime into the stuff of their daily physical existence. While this is a legitimate attempt to get others to hear the music, it can also often cause confusion, disagreements, and discord.
It is also interesting that most atheists I’ve conversed with admit that they do not pray, meditate, or otherwise participate in conscious introspection. I speculate that this results in a hardening of the awareness. When one purposefully neglects the link to the inner realm of the conscience, they work to insulate themselves against spiritual perception.
posted by
telemachus
on December 6, 2006 at 12:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Odysseus - that's another nice try - someday you just might expand your
your perspective enough to understand that the inability to believe in God is not a deficiency.
On the contrary, in most of the people I am familiar with who do not believe in God, it is the result of a heightened perception, or cognitive abilities above that of most people and a position that is not arrived at without some serious consideration. It takes some mental discipline to escape the herd mentality of belief and an extreme self confidence in one's own judgement to not ascribe all that is unknown to a conscious mythical being.
The path you are trying to go down with your comment has some merit however, there is indeed a wide disparity in perceptive and conative abilities amongst different people. Your contention would even have some validity pertaining to belief if not for the realities of indoctrination, societal conditioning and consensus building that are the primary factors influencing belief. There are some that have the ability to think beyond these factors. There are some that understand the foibles of human nature and the needs of some people to reconcile the existence of God in any way they can but if anything, recognizing these traits is not a deficiency, . . . exhibiting them is.
posted by
gomedome
on December 5, 2006 at 11:07 PM
| link to this | reply
The inability of someone to believe in God is totally baffling to me
and yet there are those, such as yourself, that not only display an unbelief, but who are also often caught up in dissention with believers. One possible explanation for this would be that the sensory ability to perceive God is lacking in some and more prevalent in others. We know that some people hear and see better than others; and so it is logical to also expect that other forms of perception would just as similarly vary among people. What people, such as yourself, seem to interpret as a “lack of respect”, is often nothing more than a believers inability to comprehend why you cannot “perceive” God with the same degree of sensitivity, awareness, and feeling that he possesses. Believers that do not understand this are perhaps overly persistent with you, trying to get you to “perceive” that which they sense; and their efforts obviously seem ludicrous to you, because the same sensory perception is remote, distant, and foreign to you. It is just as if one who had exceptional hearing ability could listen to music playing from a distance, while one who could not hear as well would say that such music did not exist. We might offer the one with the hearing impairment a “hearing aid”, just as we would offer “prayer and meditation” as a means to “aid” ones perception of God.
posted by
telemachus
on December 5, 2006 at 10:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - I think much the same way
I tend to look at my life in respect to the stage I am currently at with the thought that preparing for the afterlife should be an aside to living life to the fullest. We all only have one go around, if by some chance the fundies are right and there is an omnipotent skydaddy waiting to sit in judgement on us, I at least know that I didn't waste a precious minute of the life that I was given.
posted by
gomedome
on December 5, 2006 at 10:41 PM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - to me this is just common sense
When we look at the world and the countless different beliefs held by so many people, how can anyone claim to have it right or be on the one true path? It seems to me that the first true stage of enlightenment would be conceding that no one is wrong in what they believe. After all, we only have our personal instincts, which some people refer to as faith, to provide any sort of surety that we are on the right personal path.
posted by
gomedome
on December 5, 2006 at 10:36 PM
| link to this | reply
GOMEDOME
I THINK THAT THE LAST TWO SENTENCES (POSED AS QUESTIONS) ARE TWO OF THE MOST POWERFUL I HAVE EVER HEARD! ALLOW ME TO CONVERT THEM TO STATEMENTS:
1 WE SHOULD ALL CONCEDE THAT WE DON'T KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, OTHER THAN THAT OUR OWN INHEHERENT INSTINCTS TELL US THAT WE ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH.
2 THIS BEING THE CASE, NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY BE WRONG ABOUT WHAT THEY BELIEVE, OR HOW THEY CHOOSE TO WORSHIP.
IF WE ALL COULD ADOPT THESE TWO PRINCIPLES AS CORE MEMBERS OF OUR BELIEFS, THE WORLD WOULD EXPERIENCE THE SINGLE BIGGEST ADVANCEMENT TO THE WISDOM OF HUMANITY IN ITS ENTIRE HISTORY!
posted by
GEPRUITT
on December 5, 2006 at 9:04 PM
| link to this | reply
Supreme Being? NO
A god in all of us -- yes.
And when we talk about intelligence, was cannot use human intelligence as a guide. That's the problem with "intelligent design" advocates.
I look at complexities of things, at evolution and a movement in a direction, I perceive something (?) in all this.
But I cannot define it.
So I deal with my immediate environment.
posted by
Xeno-x
on December 5, 2006 at 2:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche. I agree completely - except when we start running them out of
town on a rail . . . we could end up wasting a lot of good rails.
I prefer to strap them into a human catapult and hurl them put of town. Seriously though, I do agree, it matters not what type of message the zealot is expounding. To do so without regard or consideration for a differing viewpoint (on any subject) completely stifles the learning process.
posted by
gomedome
on December 5, 2006 at 1:14 PM
| link to this | reply
SoloWriter - absolutely - and we have seen so many examples of this in
both our daily lives and throughout history.
posted by
gomedome
on December 5, 2006 at 1:09 PM
| link to this | reply
sannhet -that is very well put and ultimately the point of faith is it not?
Belief in anything is instinctual, where I can say much the same about my own gut instincts as you describe, if we do not concede that there is at least the possibility that we may not have it completely right, growth, new knowledge and discovery all become impeded.
posted by
gomedome
on December 5, 2006 at 1:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, I like the phrase, "the certainty of ignorance'" or "beware the
man (or woman) who has read one book". Zealots are annoying, any kind of zealot, who will not tolerate reasoned discourse or allow discussion without ridicule, like Rush Limbaugh. They ought to be run out of town on a rail themselves as they do to so many, thoughtful, moderate, people who are aware enough to have doubts.
posted by
Blanche.
on December 5, 2006 at 12:38 PM
| link to this | reply
To call any book of knowledge "absolute truth" is to endanger the innocent and the ignorant, who through their desire to be led, can easily be led to believe falsehoods and deceptions taught by those who interpret for their own profit or toward their own desires.
posted by
Jenasis
on December 5, 2006 at 12:32 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome -
When it comes right down to it, I have no clue if there is a supreme being or not. What I do have (and this applies only to me) is a gut feeling (my gut has yet to steer me wrong) that there is some sort of intelligence out "there" that brought forth the reality we all share. Could my gut be wrong? You bet. Just because it hasn't been wrong yet doesn't mean that it couldn't miss at some point. At the very least, this feeling comforts me, helps me to strive to be a better person, and helps me to love when every other part of me says not to.
posted by
sannhet
on December 5, 2006 at 11:05 AM
| link to this | reply
Schatz - I think much the same way
There may well have been a creator being or beings of some sort but there don't seem to be any indications that this being still exists. In any event I rule out supernatural powers of any sort and only allow for highly advanced knowledge if a being of any sort influenced the propagation of our existence. This is not to say that I don't try to keep an open mind but there has never in history been a supernatural act that can be corroborated (3,500 year old fairy tales don't count). So I find if I am to be honest, I cannot endorse a religious opinion that has a conscious and omnipotent creator being as the explanation to all that we do not know.
. . . but all other options are still on the table.
posted by
gomedome
on December 5, 2006 at 10:35 AM
| link to this | reply
I can totally agree with some things, but still be willing to suspend my
'knowing' momentarily and admit that there may be something I'm not seeing. I do believe that there is a power that created us all, I just don't know what or who it is. Do I still believe that I may be wrong, and that there is nothing? Yes. I don't like the idea, but I believe it is a possibility. It upsets me that there is that possibility, but I accept that it is there, nonetheless. I can see how someone who is so vested in religion would be unwilling to go that last step. I think they see it as a lack of faith, when really, it is a huge part of the faith.
I hope you're well today, Gome. :)
posted by
Schatz
on December 5, 2006 at 10:04 AM
| link to this | reply