By Charlie Daniels insists atheism is a religion that is “trying to force their religion on everybody else”:
Just what in the name of Sam Hill is atheism, if not a religion? It’s a belief, a choice concerning the deity, whether pro or con, so what atheists are doing is trying to force their religion on everybody else….
If we deny God His rightful place in the affairs of this nation should we expect Him to intervene when we need protection? Just what do you think has kept us safe from terrorist attacks since 9/11? It certainly wasn’t the atheists.
So, just in case you missed the logic, here it is:
- Atheism must be a religion.
- Atheism is a belief “pro or con concerning the deity.”
- Therefore, atheists are forcing their religion on everybody else.
Charlie Daniels may have been a great musician, but he seems to be missing the skills of logical deduction.
I prefer Don Hirschberg’s take, who said, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.”
Seriously, how is not believing something a religion? If it was, then Daniels would be an aunicornist (the religion denying unicorns), aleprechaunist (denying leprechauns), azeusinst (denying Zeus) — and, of course, he would be in the religion of not believing that atheism is not a religion.
I think that people get their terms confused. Christianity and atheism are both “worldviews” but only Christianity is a “religion.”
(via)
Entropist: These idiots are wrong on so many different levels, its hard to... 
Just a Guy: Me an my wife have negotiated infidelity. Meaning she can be with other guys as long as she doesn’t hide... 
Gwenny: Absolutely not! The world has plenty of people having kids. A child consumes HUGE amounts of resources, which from both a... 
Siberia: Or maybe they know they have neither patience nor inclination to deal with the fruit of their loins and thus, rather than be... 
DDM: Repubs and Dems. He’s saying they only take first impressions and... 
CM: Good point, most religions encourage having a lot of children. From an evolutionary standpoint you sort of owe it to your... 
Jasowah: “They don’t go beyond those emotions, and that’s the... 
108 Comments
It still amazes me that religions think you have to have faith to not believe something.
I don’t have to have faith in order to not believe.
I also don’t try and “convert” people to see the error of their thought process, whereas I’ve yet to meet a Christian that didn’t try to “save” me.
So who’s doing the forcing again?
If a cult member tries to force down their cult religion on Charlie Daniels, and he rejects it while trying to keep the cult from being part of the government, is he forcing atheism on the cult member? Or will he have to encompass every oddball cult and belief?
The only way I have had any success explaining this to religious people is to point out that calling atheism a religion is like calling theism a religion. Neither is a religion, they are both just positions on a single issue.
My favorite: If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I like this quote from Charlie’s site:
What a dark, dark world we live in folks. I can’t see my hand in front of my face! To me, the mind that thinks this really would be depressed without the delusion that their life has meaning, and that there is life after death.
1. Ego of human existence
2. Delusion of purpose and the afterlife.
Who the fark cares what Charlie Daniels thinks?
Who has kept us safe since 9/11? Was it the same entity that allowed 9/11 in the first place?
A moron’s moron.
Just what do you think has kept us safe from terrorist attacks since 9/11
The question Mr. Daniels might ask himself is where was his god on Sept 10, 2001. Was he tired from protecting us during the time between the WTC bombing of 2003 and the USS Cole?
I have to give Charlie Daniels some credit—he has managed to make the stupidest statement I have seen on the internet all day.
And I read YouTube posts.
Oh well, and I really liked the song “Devil goes down to Georgia”
Ignorance is doing something illogical because you don’t know,stupidity occurs in spite of knowing…
Knowing this man thinks this way really has no bearing on my life but it’s a reminder of the eternal pit of stupidity that is our species.
Just what do you think has kept us safe from terrorist attacks since 9/11?
George W. Bush?
@nal:
Okay, so there had to be something else, but that doesn’t mean it was a god.
I believe in exactly one less god than Charlie Daniels believes in.
@nal
If you are trying to imply that god kept us safe since 9/11, doesn’t that also imply that god did not keep us safe on 9/11?
You can’t give your god credit for everything good without also giving him credit for everything bad.
Let’s make a list of these:
If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color.
If atheism is a religion…
Metro, Aor
I’m confused as to why you think that nal implied god by saying GW?
the words “religion” and “relationship” mean approximately the same thing semantically. since atheism does not work to create a relationship between oneself and the creator, i would say that atheism is not a religion.
Atheism is the absence of belief in god(s). I don’t believe in elves either. I guess to Charlie Daniels, not believing in elves must also be a religion.
Unfortunately we have some atheists who behave as if atheism were a religion, which helps lend credence to illogical religious types like Daniels.
Charlie Daniels is still alive???
@McBloggenstein:
In my case it’s because invoking George W. Bush as the thing that has kept the United States “safe” and unattacked didn’t seem intended to be taken seriously.
Therefore nal was saying, in effect: “Since we know it wasn’t Bush, who else could it be?”
Personally I think it was Chuck Norris–the only guy who could beat God in a thumb war.
I rather like the quote you referenced above. My point would be that yes, atheists, especially converts from major faiths, DO suffer doubts. I live in an agony of uncertainty. Because I believe there’s a minute chance that I could be wrong–because I can’t quite scrub the last little bit of Catholicism from my mind. And that’s okay. Keeps me (hopefully) honest. Charlie embraces the fear and integrates it, without worrying about whether he might be wrong.
But deconverts recognize that fear as having been inculated in us as children, and with adult minds we reason our way out of it. Believers have to “take it on faith.”
It is Mr. Daniels who continues to live in fear of the threats made against him by the shamans and gods of his tribe. It is not atheists who tell him he’s hellbound.
In a strict sense of a word, atheism is not a religion. Neither is buddhism, by the way.
However, the term “religion” is often used interchangeably with “belief system”, and atheism is (in my opinion) a belief system.
The example with not collecting stamps is off base. Or, rather, this is a counterexample. Do you know of any sites dedicated to not collecting stamps? Any books about not collecting stamps?
…And if you suddenly see these, what would you think about not collecting stamps? and about people behind the not collecting stamps movement?
Good example, indeed.
@James-
You Said…
“If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color.
If atheism is a religion…”
———————————————————————
If true Christianity is merely a “religion” (rule keeping) than why did the “religious” leaders hate this Christ so much? I’m assuming the bible is your basis for this “religion” you call Christianity. Jesus and the “religious” (rule-keepers) were ALWAYS at odds..Jesus called them white-washed tombs and vipers…cuz they were dead in their religion and tried to snake-bite those that would dare be free of this toxic venom of “religion” (like me). Jesus did not leave the paradaisical world…and join us in our “lowly state” to bring some heavy “religion” but rather to “liberate” us from its ugly fangs of death and decay. Religion stinks.
Religion=oppression, heaviness, law-keeping, dogma
true christianity= spirit-led living, un-burdening, love+++
Given the amount of time you all collectively spend “talking” about, bashing this Christ…you would think that maybe at least a couple of you would have some authentic insight, albeit w/doubts…but SOMETHING more substantial than…freakin’ “religion” which you guys are so hung up on…its all you ever write about. Get off the religion rag and get a clue…HE IS LOVE and HE LOVES YOU. Who has the stomach to WANT to know….the TRUTH? For yourselves, anyone? Is there not one William Wallace amongst the whole lot who will lead you out of this “dead” thing you call atheism?
So I guess since you guys are your OWN God’s and you fellowship here…at the church of Unreasonable Faith then that makes you…religious?
Now that I’ve given Daniel some great “posterboard” material, how bout just ONE of you provide some kind of at least half-way true character description of this man called Jesus? Who IS He…really?
Honestly, I’ve traded enough posts now, hung around long enough (too long I know) to say what I’m saying here about your collective mindsets…and religion is the one thing that you all despise…well guess what? So did HE, so you’re in good company! If you cant stand the long-robed, hypocritical, un-authentic pious folk……then at least you and HIM have something in common.
Crazy JC
John, again you make no sense. You are religious. You are religious. You are religious.
Is it sinking in? You are religious. Stop claiming not to be.
Want proof? Are you ready? Really? Are you ready?
Here it is.
The definition of religious:
1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.
You fit #1. Plain and simple. You are religious. Stop lying to us, stop lying to yourself. You do not have the right to redefine the word to mean whatever you want. Stop doing that, or I will redefine religious to mean buying cheese.
“The example with not collecting stamps is off base. Or, rather, this is a counterexample. Do you know of any sites dedicated to not collecting stamps? Any books about not collecting stamps?”
If 80% of American’s were stamp collectors, if stamp collecting was a de facto requirement for holding political office, if stamp collectors constantly tried to enact laws that forced everyone to collect stamps, and if stamp collectors pushed schools to teach everyone’s children to collect stamps, then you bet your ass there would be hundreds of anti-stamp collecting websites out there.
That’s the thing that the religious nuts don’t seem to grok: we are angry because you won’t stop shoving your idiotic beliefs in our faces. Stop trying to enforce your belief system on everyone around you, and we will stop talking about you. It’s that simple.
To Crazy JC:
I will accept your challenge: “how bout just ONE of you provide some kind of at least half-way true character description of this man called Jesus? Who IS He…really?”
Based on historical evidence that includes multiple sources, there may have been one or more itinerant Jewish teachers with the extremely common name of Yeshua, and it’s possible one or more of them were executed by the Romans. But maybe not.
Or, if we stick to just a single source, the bible, then:
A child born in a manger because his parents were forced by Roman law to travel home for a Roman census (they weren’t, that never happened), had to flee to Egypt because Herod had all the 2 year old boys murdered (they didn’t, Herod not only never did this, but was already dead by the time this event supposedly happened), he spoke about a global flood as if it was a real event (it wasn’t), he healed people and raised them from the dead (and not one contemporary writer mentions these unprecedented events), he was sentenced to death and executed (no Roman record of this), and his life story was written about starting about fifty years after he supposedly died, with not one of his friends or contemporaries bothering to write a word about him until almost two generations of people had gone by.
Is that the Jesus you know too?
John C
“I’m assuming the bible is your basis for this “religion” you call Christianity. ”
Actually, it’s the majority of Christians who claim the bible as the basis of their religion. I just shrug and take them at their word.
The origin of a believer’s religion couldn’t concern me less—only the consequences of their beliefs upon society at large.
Oh dear, John. I think the cracks are beginning to show:
You’d think God would have included some clear instructions then. Something like “Oh, and I don’t want you establishing enormous religions in my name.” “Gather ye not in groups and organize thou not also,” something along those lines. Odd that he didn’t–given his infinite knowledge of the nature of humanity.
And as far as I can tell, no more people here “bash” Jesus than have bashed you thus far. One or two perhaps, but there’s no real meanness in it.
We did, thanks. We got rid of the god rag altogether. Now it’s your turn, brother! Have you heard the good news of Nothing?
Well considering how many times you’ve been asked to show us your “truth” I think you know the answer. Me for one. Lo, we stand at your door and knock. But the thing is that you tend to open the door a crack and slam it in our faces.
I will convert to any faith that can be logically proven to be true, or even inferred within some measurable fraction of certainty.
No, silly. We don’t have any gods. None of us sees the need to haul an invisible sky man around in our collective, producing him at opportune moments. You really are quite new to this atheist thing, aren’t you?
Just because some folks feel more comfortable about dying because an invisible spirit man lives inside them doesn’t mean everyone feels like they do.
*blink*
Jesus the atheist? Now there’s something you don’t hear every day!
Atheism isn’t a religion. It’s a non-prophet society.
@ privet: By that standard, wouldn’t video gaming be a religion, because it has so many forums and websites dedicated to it? What about shopping? Lots of sites dedicated to that.
I subscribe to the FAIL blog, and everyone loves lots of fail, so if I have to join a religion, maybe I would join FAIL.
:)
Seriously though, I think Ty’s response was excellent. RAmen!
@privet -
“atheism is (in my opinion) a belief system.”
My problem with this is very simple: there are not enough required beliefs in atheism to create a system. In fact, depending on how you choose to phrase it, there is only a lack of belief: a lack of a belief in a deity. That’s it.
Other things may connect to that, but they are neither required nor universal. There are Buddhist atheists, “spiritual” atheists and materialist atheists. I’ve met atheists who were highly skeptical of the theory of evolution, and I know many atheists who attend church services. The only common factor amongst them is that do no believe in a supreme deity.
If we tend to cluster together in blogs and web forums, there’s a reason for that. As Ty pointed out, we’re a minority. And not a well respected minority either. Surveys have shown that Americans would vote for a Jew, a Mormon, a Muslim, or a dead wombat before they’d vote for an atheist. Check out his post from Greta Christina, where she discusses how even the gay community is reluctant to touch us: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2008/12/being-an-atheist-in-the-queer-community.html
So we tend to cluster together for mutual support. What else would you expect?
Atheism is not a philosophy, i would go so far as to say it is NOT even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious.
“Atheism” is a term that should not exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” The creation of the term athiest for a non-believer, by the believers, could be the single most damaging and destuctive meme against rationalists.
We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Believing any of the ‘magic’ books to be the world of god is no different to believing that the Lord Of The Rings is a true story in the history of our planet.
Atheism is soley the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
@aor- “You can’t give your god credit for everything good without also giving him credit for everything bad.”
Well, reasonable, logical people can’t; christians tend to think just the opposite- anything and everything good that happens- God. If it’s bad- Us. Somebody survives a car crash, plane crash, illness, etc., it’s because God saved him. But if they die, it’s because of Adam’s sin, which led to people dying in the first place. In their mind, you just can’t win- God is *incapable* of doing anything “bad”, by definition.
@ John B & Aor
Cant remember where i saw this posted (was it this site?) but it’s along the same lines! ;)
Is god willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
Ty, that’s my point. In the terrible ;) situation you describe, not collecting stamps is not just passive “not doing something”. It’s active fighting against stamp collectors.
Hence, it’s wrong to say that poor suppressed American atheists are just non-believers. They have an agenda, and they do have a belief system.
By the way, I live in the States for 12 years, I’m not a Christian and I’ve never had any problems or any discomfort related to this. There are many more destructive beliefs in the American society than need to be changed. Of course, that’s just my limited view; I was raised in an atheist society and have no personal agenda with Christians ;)
VorJack:
Yes, I’ve seen the survey about not voting for atheist. And, I have to admit, I was very surprised, almost shocked by this. So, I understand it may be depressing… especially for someone running for president :)
Metro-
You said “I will convert to any FAITH that can be logically proven to be true, or even inferred within some measurable fraction of certainty.”
Then it wouldn’t require any actual…FAITH would it?
Faith is the “substance” of things hoped for, the “evidence” of things NOT seen” (have you ever heard that def before?)
———————————————————————-
Where did you get this sky-God concept? From the arts? I could see that. But Jesus (assuming we’re talking about christianity) never really taught that, actually quite the opposite. Although “if” there is a GOD then one can certainly imagine HIM/IT being omni-present…but distant.. No.
Sky-God paintings are common because that’s the closest thing man-kind can come UP with to symoblize the unseen, spiritual realm, the sky. When I mentioned Him coming to our “lower-state” I was referring to Him having come from the realm of spirit “down” into the physical realm.
———————————————————————-
I am nobody special…but I know this about knowing Him…you have to WANT to…and be found lacking…or empty of your SELF, that being your OWN idea’s, beliefs but I know that sounds very foolish and vulnerable to you in your current mindset…errhh…heartset. lol
You keep asking for PROOF but you dont really WANT to know cuz you are (obviously) quite satisfied with your own current FULLness. If you did want to know you might want to “hear” my SPIRIT posts I wrote when I first came on the forum one week ago…but I know you have no interest.
But thanks for keepin up anyway, maybe one day we will actually communicate with each other…:)
John
“Ty, that’s my point. In the terrible ;) situation you describe, not collecting stamps is not just passive “not doing something”. It’s active fighting against stamp collectors.”
No, this is where you are wrong. Not collecting stamps is entirely passive. It is simply not doing something, and each of us don’t do an infinite number of things each day. The fact that atheists fight religious attitudes (sometimes) is a sign that there are serious pressures in society trying to force everyone to do that particular thing.
I’m happy that you are an atheist and haven’t experienced any trouble, but your anecdote doesn’t mean much. All it means is that you’ve never tried to run for public office, that you don’t have children in a school district that is toying with including intelligent design in the classroom, that you don’t care that you are considered by Americans to be one of the least trustworthy members of society, etc.
Yay for you. But I take exception to your assertion that there is no reason to actively oppose religion. I am an atheist. I don’t oppose god, not any more than I oppose unicorns. I do, however, oppose the very real pressure religion exerts on the society I live in; an influence I find unhealthy and damaging.
“But thanks for keepin up anyway, maybe one day we will actually communicate with each other…:)”
I met your challenge. Your inability to communicate is not a problem with the other parties involved. It is entirely your fault.
And down home aw-shucks-iness doesn’t excuse the fact that you are dishonest in how you approach communication. You raise points, and when they are answered or argued, you back away with a false “I’m not edumacated” dismissal and no attempt to actually discuss the points made.
I don’t know you. But your posts indicate chronic dishonesty in your style of communication.
Here’s a simple one for you:
If Jesus existed prior to his human birth, how come he didn’t know that the flood described in Genesis was a pre-Hebrew myth, and had no connection to an actual event?
Darn, now I’m going to have to go get rid of “The Devil went Down to Georgia”…
@ Metro
I don’t think the only criteria for believing in a religion, in the sense of paying reverence to said deity, should be proof of said deity, or enough evidence to logically infer it. There are an awful lot of people that I am pretty darn sure exist that I do not respect.
I’ve told Christians before that if they could incontrovertibly prove the existence of their God, I would still not worship it, and would redouble my efforts to get others to do the same, because it is NOT an exemplar of moral behavior.
@privet
If there were some effort by the stamp collectors to force non stamp collectors to collect stamps, or treat all stamps as if they were worth saving for the future in case you ever become a stamp collector, or to encourage people in nations without stamps to start using stamps, or to imply that by not collecting stamps people would be immoral and somehow less worthy than a stamp collector, then you would have a point.
Wait, maybe I had that backwards.
I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny. Does that make me religious?
Now, I’m confused. Maybe somebody can help me out. I remember reading on this blog an entry concerning an “Atheists’ creed”. It was eventually voted down, which is good, since that would begin to put atheism into the category of religion.
That being said, there is an impulse within atheism to have a united front, and even to claim some unifying tenet(s). I’m not saying that makes atheism a religion, but it is as though there were non-stamp collectors who were seriously considering forming a non-stamp collecting club: even if they ultimately rejected the idea, it is still floating around.
On top of that, I don’t know that I am convinced that atheists don’t proselytize in much the same way a religious person might. Evangelism is evangelism, isn’t it? (And try to not bring in the issue of which side has better factual evidence. I’m not talking about the justification for the proselytizing, just that it occurs.)
Well, by that reasoning then mathematicians are evangelists.
@Aor
Not really as evangelism is just the active and enthusiastic promotion of a subject or view so I would by happy to say that say Ian Stewart evangelises maths. The only objection I would have to saying that Richard Dawkins is an evangelist for atheism is it would end up be used to “prove” that atheism is a religion and/or faith.
@Everyone who says atheism is a religion:
Define “religion.” Otherwise, there is no way to verify whether the argument is true or false.
“If atheism is a religion then health is an illness.”
Really? Faith is evidence? The fact that people believe in God is evidence that God exists?
Well, far more people believe in a highly legalistic deity who’ll condemn them to hell if they don’t obey all the rules and regulations than believe in your big, fuzzy blankie of a god. So I guess there’s far more evidence for the kind of religion you keep denying than for the one you follow. Why do you keep denying the evidence?
Or is faith, you know, not evidence?
Epicurus, 341BC – 270BC. Smart man.
Dan L.
Aor did in response to John C. here:
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/08/charlie-daniels-calls-atheism-a-religion/#comment-7860
@privet
I will say welcome to the US, and consider yourself lucky to have not been witness to the lunacy that Christianity brings out of people. If you would like a taste of it, go to YouTube and search for “Crazy Christians”:
http://www.youtube.com/results?rlz=1C1GGLS_en-USUS299US303&sourceid=chrome&q=crazy%20christians&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1
Have fun!
@ John C.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm… Let me think…
“He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet.” Psalm 18:9
“Elijah replied to them, “If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty.” Then the fire of God came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty.” 2 Kings 1:12
“Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments.” Nehemiah 9:13
“Now when Solomon had made an end of praying, the fire came down from heaven, and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the house.” 2 Chronicles 7:1
“I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold, a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven” Daniel 4:13
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him” Matthew 3:16
…to name a few.
Charlie Daniels’ FATHER was a great musician; Charlie Daniels Jr. is not.
@Jonathon: Who said anything about Jr?
@John C.
And it’s John C. for the convincing argument FAIL.
This discussion began because I opened a dialogue with you after initially refusing to engage based on your initial posts, which were little short of incoherence.
Now what you’re saying, in essence, is that since I don’t believe, cannot believe, I must not want to believe, no matter what I say otherwise. Which is the argument most theists turn to once their other arguments have run out.
You throw in the need to believe without seeing. I refer you to Thomas the Apostle, for whom Jesus Christ personally appeared in physical form some time after his death. If Thomas was worth that much, why am I not? Woe is unto me. For I must be one worthless sonovabitch soul for God to have so rejected me (cue John saying “No–YOU reJECTed HiM).
You speak of “abandoning the self.” I call it “turning off the bullshit detector.” Why should I check my reason at the door? If God exists, he gave it to me–why would the first requirement of faith in Him be that I stop using it?
That’s always been my question to you John. And you consistently fail to answer it. If nothing else, you’ve tended to reinforce my atheism. For if the arguments for god are so unconvincing, what reason is there to believe?
@lonlonmilk
Ah, the old argument: Proof denies faith. John C. said as much. Which is fine, but then we’re back to Pascal’s Wager and the question of what things-without-evidence we’re going to choose to believe in.
I picked the Flying Spaghetti Monster. For if I am a good Pastafarian, when I die I will go to heaven, where there are beer volcanoes and a stripper factory.
However, I do sacrifice to Odin irregularly, on the premise that fighting, feasting, and #$^%ing in Valhalla sound like more fun than standing about singing hymns on a golden pavement. If I show my note from the school nurse I think they’ll let me skip the fighting.
It always helps to have a safety heaven in reserve.
Metro: I don’t think lonlonmilk was arguing that proof denies faith, but that even if he had proof that God existed as described in the Bible, he wouldn’t find Him to be worthy of worship.
“Now, I’m confused. Maybe somebody can help me out. I remember reading on this blog an entry concerning an “Atheists’ creed”. It was eventually voted down, which is good, since that would begin to put atheism into the category of religion.”
Enough definitions of religion have now been posted that you’d have to be very obtuse to think that having a ‘creed’ makes a group into a religion. By that measuring stick, most social clubs are religions.
“That being said, there is an impulse within atheism to have a united front, and even to claim some unifying tenet(s). I’m not saying that makes atheism a religion, but it is as though there were non-stamp collectors who were seriously considering forming a non-stamp collecting club: even if they ultimately rejected the idea, it is still floating around.”
As I pointed out, this desire to unify is entirely because of our dislike of the pressure that religion puts on society. As I also pointed out, if society had an unhealthy obsession with stamp collecting, people would organize to oppose that. You are so desperate to say, “See! You’re just like us!” that you are grabbing at some really thin straws here.
“On top of that, I don’t know that I am convinced that atheists don’t proselytize in much the same way a religious person might. Evangelism is evangelism, isn’t it? (And try to not bring in the issue of which side has better factual evidence. I’m not talking about the justification for the proselytizing, just that it occurs.)”
As someone else pointed out, that means that mathematicians ‘proselytize’. I often try to convince people that the NFL is more interesting than the MLB. Does this mean my religion is the NFL?
Thin straws indeed. I do however love that one of the most common attacks religious folks use on atheists is to try and say that atheists are just as bad as they are.
Ty:
Mathematicians don’t proselytize. To proselytize means to convert to one’s faith. Mathematics is a science and it doesn’t require faith. You accept a number of axioms, and work it out from there. The axioms are just par of the game, not some universal truth that mathematicians “believe”.
Theists and atheists build their system on different axiomatic basis, but the axioms themselves are not verifiable. It’s not science. Any confirmation to theist/atheist worldview is just inductive. You’ve seen 1000 swans, and they all white, so you conclude all swans are white. It’s a very reasonable axiom, more reasonable than assuming swans are of all colors of rainbow (because of Occam’s principle). But it’s still an axiom, and the only way to prove it strictly is to find all the swans on Earth and make sure they are white. With God hypothesis, it’s worse, since it’s supernatural by definition. I don’t know of any experiment (even mind experiment) that would prove or disprove the existence of God. Both sides could always explain things from their axiomatic basis.
On the other hand, your NFL example is much closer. Yes, believing NFL is better than MLB is just that – it’s your belief. Could you call it a religion? Probably it’s a stretch, but it’s in the same category – category of beliefs.
In the case of a non-interventionist, Deist God, you’re exactly right. In the case of Jehovah, as described in The Bible, then John 14:14 looks like a testable prediction. Or Mark 11:24. Mr Matthew 21:21.
Or Mark 16:17-18, for a slightly different example. It’s trivial to prove that Christians are no more immune to poison than the rest of us are. Or maybe that merely proves that there are no Real True Christians.
Either way, it’s a testable claim. And that’s why, when you make that kind of statement, you need to specify that you mean a meaningless, vague, undefined god that no-one actually believes in. Otherwise, people might think that you mean their specific, detailed, claim-making god, and then where will we be?
“With God hypothesis, it’s worse, since it’s supernatural by definition. I don’t know of any experiment (even mind experiment) that would prove or disprove the existence of God. Both sides could always explain things from their axiomatic basis.”
You are giving belief in god special status. There are literally an infinite number of things you don’t believe in because you’ve never seen any evidence that those things exist.
Why is this specific disbelief granted such weight? From my perspective, I am forced to give it additional weight because the organizations that espouse this particular belief are powerful and intrusive. If those organizations all went away, or suddenly had no power in public discourse, my disbelief in god would be relegated to the basement among the infinite number of other things I don’t believe.
But the bottom line is: the fact that large numbers of people and many powerful organizations assert a thing as true does not make it true. The fact that some people oppose these powerful organizations in forcing this assertion on others also does not mean that thing is true.
“Yes, believing NFL is better than MLB is just that – it’s your belief. Could you call it a religion? Probably it’s a stretch, but it’s in the same category – category of beliefs.”
To paraphrase Jules Winfield: “Ain’t no ballpark, it ain’t even the same fuckin’ sport.”
Throwing every belief system into the same category as a religion is an outrageous stretch at best, and disingenuous at worst.
@privet
I feel as though you are stretching/broadening the definition of what atheism is in order to compare it. It shouldn’t be forgotten that at it’s core, atheism is merely a lack of a belief. A lot of the points you’ve made involve the politics of people that religion has an effect on.
If we’re talking about the movement of like minded people to keep things like government and schools secular, as an opposition to the ever present force of the religious to interject their beliefs into others lives, then I would say that the points you are making hold some water. But, the opposition to religion and its politics should not be labeled as “atheism”, even if most of the opposition’s members are atheists.
People that wish to stop the spread of religion, and even enlighten the religious to their way of thinking do have an agenda, you’re right. But this does not mean that “atheism” has an agenda. Some atheists wish to proselytize, but that does not mean that “atheism” proselytizes.
“Atheism” is not a set of beliefs, does not proselytize, does not have an agenda.
Some “atheists” do believe in certain things, proselytize, and/ have agendas.
Ty:
You’re contradicting yourself. It’s not me, it’s you how is giving belief in god special status. I don’t care. You feel suppressed and fight against those evel Christians. I sympathize that, good luck.
But don’t twist what I said. I claim quite the opposite: all the beliefs have the same nature, be it religion or other beliefs. The belief in God does not have a special status. The only importance of a belief is how it changes our behavior, this is the only “measurement”. Hence, I see some beliefs as good, constructive, and others as bad, destructive. Can you tell Christians from non-Christians, unless they start proselytizing? I can’t. And nobody ever started proselytizing with me. This is why I don’t take Christians seriously and I don’t care about their invisible friends.
One note, though. I live in the Silicon Valley, socialize only with hi-tech professionals, who are mostly atheists (I guess… I never asked) and probably haven’t seen the real America. Probably, this is the reason I undermine (or misunderstand) the problem.
McBloggenstein:
You’re exactly right, I agree.
@privet
“and probably haven’t seen the real America”
Did you look at those videos on YouTube I told you about earlier? Sure they are extreme examples, but those people are most certainly among us, and for some very odd reason, they are not labeled as crazy because their beliefs somehow make others just look the other way.
Us atheists with agendas don’t want to look the other way, and we want these people labeled as crazy.
If you agree with my definition and seperation of “atheism” and “atheists”, then would you agree that your first statement on this post:
“and atheism is (in my opinion) a belief system”
…was not correct?
@wintermute:
Thanks for pointing that out. I misunderstood lonlonmilk’s intent.
Sorry for the confusion.
“You’re contradicting yourself. It’s not me, it’s you how is giving belief in god special status.”
No, Privet, it’s not.
There are people in this world who do not believe in a deity. We call them “atheists.”
There are people in this world who do not believe in the Australian aboriginal monster called the bunyip. We do NOT call these people “a-bunyip-ists”
Why? Why does a lack of a belief in a deity warrant a special name, but a lack of a belief in other supernatural entities does not?
Do you see how it appears that our society gives the belief in a deity a special status, over and above belief in various other supernatural creatures?
Beat me to it, Vorjack. Thanks.
Privet, I am totally willing to accept the idea that we are talking past each other here. I admit I find your points sometimes hard to parse out. My bad. I’m not trying to generate an argument where none exists, if that’s the case.
McBloggenstein:
“and atheism is (in my opinion) a belief system”
…was not correct?
Yes, I admit that. Your definition is much better:
“Some “atheists” do believe in certain things, proselytize, and/ have agendas.”
Ty, nice Pulp Fiction reference.
McBlog-
Oh how long must I bear with you :) lol
While NT does not obviate, but complete OT (dimmer revelation) with the (brighte) light of LOVE).
And while I dont want to play “bibles at 20 paces”, consider the following…
You referenced (along with other OT)”“I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and, behold,a watcher and an holy one came down from heaven” Daniel 4:13
Where did Daniel see all this? In the visions of his (own) head!
&
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him” Matthew 3:16
Let me ask you, do you suppose that before Jesus was baptized that the sun had already come up that day? ..and lo the heavens were opened unto HIM…but not John & the others that were there with Him? How is this unless it was opened IN HIM…ok think like…cosmic egg…explosion theory.
These are things opening up within a man, openings, revelations, visions, lightnings, flashes etc. They occur on the inside of a man, not externally. You never read any of my suggestions on this interesting topic…thats ok.
Maybe this will help…as far as your Mt Sinai reference…consider how it is “completed” in the NT now…
Heb 12:18….For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched (physically), and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest…v21…and so terrible was the sight, [that] Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake…but ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels…to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect…and to JESUS the MEDIATOR of the New Covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaks BETTER THINGS than [that of] Abel. (old Test).
Now we have this “treasure in earthen vessels” (our bodies) and there is something hidden in our earth (us).
Thats why I drew the mining analogy to illustrate better this treasure inwardly in the spirit realm.
The kingdom of Heaven is…within us…Christ IN YOU…the mystery of the ages.
Think progressive revelation…just like the closer something gets to the sun the more it speeds up…gets closer..why? What is space-time?
Or are you dealing with a case of “quantum entanglement” fever? It (HIM) being “spooky at a distance”??
“In HIM we live and move and have our very being” Acts 17:28.
John
Jules Winfield is my hero.
Ok, I just put John C onto my “complete and utter waste of time” list. He has zero reading comprehension skills, and just doesn’t respond to anything he can’t hand wave away.
@Metro-
Reason has now usurpped (sp)?, or has an iverted, stronger position within man than his original, spiritual matrix. Once, we were more attuned to our spiritual nature and thus sensitive to it, man has lost that sensitivity and is now dominated by his physical senses alone…unless he be regenerated, indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That puts the “house” back in order in its original state and reason can be enlightened and used…amazingly.
And no you are not a worthless @#%, quite the opposite.
I feel no complusion whatsoever to “convince” you but rather an obligation to speak the truth in love.
He can be known in the very way in which He said..and is not a liar.
What did He say?
John
TY-
I just assumed you and AOR were one in the same cuz I always got identical type posts from you…how could I respond “reasonably” to some of those, its nothing personal…
John
How about responding at all to the points brought up, rather than hand waving?
This, by the way, is hand waving:
“Reason has now usurpped (sp)?, or has an iverted, stronger position within man than his original, spiritual matrix. Once, we were more attuned to our spiritual nature and thus sensitive to it, man has lost that sensitivity and is now dominated by his physical senses alone…unless he be regenerated, indwelt by the Holy Spirit. That puts the “house” back in order in its original state and reason can be enlightened and used…amazingly.”
It is a series of unsupported assertions that, if you parse them down, mean exactly nothing. It is intended to come across as deep and spiritual by masking its complete lack of meaning in a lot of words.
“”Reason has now usurpped (sp)?, or has an iverted, stronger position within man than his original, spiritual matrix. ”
What does that mean? What is a spiritual matrix? What evidence can you provide that physical senses have usurped this spiritual matrix, whatever it is?
“Once, we were more attuned to our spiritual nature and thus sensitive to it, man has lost that sensitivity and is now dominated by his physical senses alone…unless he be regenerated, indwelt by the Holy Spirit.”
When was this? What evidence exists to show that we were once more attuned to our spiritual nature? What is a spiritual nature, and how is one attuned to it in the first place?
“That puts the “house” back in order in its original state and reason can be enlightened and used…amazingly.”
If this is an example of the enlightened reason given by being ‘indwelt by the holy spirit’ then I want to avoid it at all costs. This answer is, quite honestly, gibberish.
I spent 30 years as an evangelical. I’d bet I’ve read the bible more times than you have. This kind of meaningless babble used to counter rational points is the reason I no longer am.
John C.
Do you know that feeling you get when you’re talking to someone that doesn’t speak the same language as you, so for some reason you talk louder, as if it would help them understand you? I feel like you are doing that to everyone, and everyone is doing it to you. The only difference is, we understand what you are saying. Repeating it doesn’t make a difference.
Again I will sum up what you said in one sentence:
“References to God and Heaven being a person or a place are not to be taken literal, because He and His kingdom can be found WITHIN us.”
Did I get it right?
Well, that’s fine, except every single line from the Bible I quoted has words like “came down” and “under” and “descending”, implying he is above us. And I’m sure there are hundreds of other lines that are very similar in wording. Do you know why many different people in the Bible used words that would suggest that God and Heaven are literally above us, when you say they are not really?
“Reason has now usurped (sp)?, or has an iverted, stronger position within man than his original, spiritual matrix. ”
Wait.
so people back in the day were smarter than we are now? What with all of our medical advances and believing that the very spherical earth rotates around a very bright sun that isn’t hauled through the sky by an invisible chariot?
Posit: why don’t you practice Wicca, or Paganism, or Satanism, or any other religion as plausible? They have a very “spiritual matrix” and they are very focussed on equally religious things. Just curious.
Ty
Is Ezekiel 25:17 your favorite verse because of Jules? :)
Jules… paraphrased… quite a bit, taking some poetic license.
But yes, HIS version of that scripture is my favorite. :)
Well, either that one or Eccl 10:19
“19 A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.”
I like money.
I’ve always been a fan of Mark 11:12-14. After all, nothing says “infinite love” like smiting a fig-tree for not fruiting out of season.
Oh, but Wintermute, that’s a lesson!
If we don’t fruit out of season, god will totally be forced to smite us. Or something.
Out of love.
Winter-
Long time no hear from…hope you are doing well.
Symbolism plays a powerful and beautiful role in illustrative heavenly language and the fig tree story is one of them.
I didnt know you were such a tree-hugger! Im kidding.
John
Mcblog-
Thx…the term “above” means that that the spiritual realm is a “higher” form or plane than the physical one. So yes…Heaven is above…in that way. Therefore its a spiritual place…as far as an address…I will have to get back with you after I “cross o’er! lol
How would you convince anyone from the past (not too long ago) that the “unseen” world of quantum physics is, despite being “unseen” very, very real?
So, do you SEE the quantum realities with your eyes Mcb?
This is the point I am trying to get you to just CONSIDER, that is that just because YOU cant see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
John
John, the term “duplicitous” means given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.
“So, do you SEE the quantum realities with your eyes Mcb?
This is the point I am trying to get you to just CONSIDER, that is that just because YOU cant see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.”
A two second websearch will provide you with reams of data showing that the quantum realm is measurable, and useful predictions can be made about it.
Can you make a single useful prediction using your god hypothesis?
We’re waiting.
“Symbolism plays a powerful and beautiful role in illustrative heavenly language and the fig tree story is one of them.”
What is the symbolism here? Give Jesus what he wants, or he will fuck you up?
Stop hand waving. Everyone sees through it. Say even one meaningful thing. I dare you. I double dog dare you.
TY-
Be nice…bro, chill…I’m not here to pick a fight but to have some dialogue, whether or not we can actually communicate is another question I know.
I was simply making the point that there (quantum) is something unseeable yet very real. But you say the spirit realm is not real…I say it is…just like we cant see the quantum world but that makes it none the less…real.
Lets be civil…we’re all in this together after-all.
John
Aor-
Relax…I am not being duplicitous…not being purposefully deceptive if thats what you are inferring…again…tonight for the 1000th time! Why would I want to do that, honestly? What good could come out of that?
Grrr….ufff
John
If you’ve not heard from me in a “long time”, I suggest that has more to do with you refusing to listen than with me not talking. It would certainly explain why you refused to answer the question I asked you at 08:04 this morning. Well, now that you’re paying attention again, I trust you’ll answer promptly and intelligibly, right?
Jesus doesn’t know how plants work? Jesus is a petty and vindictive little man who can’t deal with being told “no”? Jesus is an angry drunk?
No, go on. I double-dog dare you to spin that as a sign of Jesus’ benevolence and love. Bear in mind, the story boils down to “If Jesus can’t have figs, he’s going to make sure no-one else can, either”. If your kids behaved like that, how would you react? With praise or punishment?
Unseeable with the naked eye, you mean. We have these cunning devices called “scanning electron microscopes” and “particle colliders” that let us see into the quantum realm very effectively and with repeatable results.
And clearly you believe we have some way to see the “spiritual realm”, because otherwise we’d not be able to find out anything about it, would we? And Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs and Wiccans would all report different experiences. And as that’s clearly not the case… Oh, wait. I see where I went wrong. Carry on.
John, you lie like a rug. A poorly manufactured rug that unravels when people look at it. Each time you are asked to back up your claims, you act like you are somehow above having to justify your position on anything.
Combined with your more outright lies (that you aren’t here to proselytize, aren’t religious, etc) I think that makes you fit the definition of duplicitious quite well.
McBloggenstein:
I understand that, but Aor is a reasonable person who understands the importance of defining terms when trying to make progress in an argument. For the most part, apologists try to avoid defining terms at all costs. I like to challenge them while at the same time giving them the courtesy of picking the battleground, so to speak. It becomes much easier to argue with them when they say something and have to stick to it.
privet:
I disagree quite strongly, but I’m going to change terms on you here, as I would rather call myself a skeptic than an atheist. And here is the big difference: it’s not just that the axioms are different, it’s the WAY that they’re different. Theists posit reams of completely arbitrary axioms by the very nature of their positions. Skeptics, on the other hand, try to minimize the number of axioms needed to support their beliefs. In my opinion, Occam’s razor should be applied to one’s own beliefs frequently, and doubt should be the default state of any mind when presented with a new idea. These are axioms, but they are very different in nature than, say, positing that there is a sort of “spiritual matter,” as is done in most religions.
For a skeptic, “All swans are white” is not an axiom, it is a hypothesis, and subject to change as soon as one can show me a black (or green or pink or…) swan. Since one cannot prove that all swans are white, one must allow the possibility that a counterexample to the hypothesis will be found. However, when all evidence seems to suggest that all swans are white, the claim that there is a black swan should be accompanied with appropriate evidence (i.e. show me the goddam swan).
If God exists, it is in principle quite easy to prove as long as He is willing to play along. However, the “hypothesis” that God exists is even worse than you claim. Certainly, the claim cannot be falsified and that is a black mark against it, but more importantly it has NO explanatory power. An all-loving infallible omnipotent God is an equally good explanation for ANY possible universe, and so the claim has no special hold over our own.
Again, this is not to say that skepticism rejects axioms as a means to organize beliefs; merely to say that skepticism demands temperance in employing such axioms. Religion, however, demands that one debauch in a carnival of unsupported assumptions.
It is true, “atheism” isn’t a religion. Ignoring the traditional uses of the word, a “religion” is merely one’s beliefs put into practice. Because every human being has beliefs of one sort of another and, assuming there isn’t a single individual with one set of beliefs but entirely practicing another, it’s safe to say every single human being has a religion … of one.
As it were, because “atheism” isn’t an identifiable set of positive beliefs but rather a conclusion drawn from certain sets of identifiable positive beliefs with rather negative ramifications regarding the positive beliefs of others, one’s actual religion may lead one to an “atheistic” point of view, however, “atheism” does not and cannot become a religion in and of itself. “There is no god” isn’t a primary position but rather the result of one’s primary position regarding the most fundamental characteristics of nature (metaphysics) which lead one to certain very specific conclusions regarding human consciousness and human knowledge. Long before one has concluded the alleged facts and arguments for a “god” are incorrect, one has already laid a firm foundation for a philosophy – metaphysics and epistemology. In theism, “God exists” is the first assumption that lays down the rest.
Theism becomes a religion, “atheism” cannot. It can only be one of many conclusions resulting from an as yet unnamed philosophy and its associated practices, its “religion”.
There are a number of clearly defined religions that are “atheistic” in nature and relative to others, however, there are none qualifying for the label of “atheism”. The latter has no metaphysics or epistemology, no ethics, politics or aesthetic and certainly no resulting practices of its own.
Well, any possible universe that doesn’t have pain or evil in it. It’s a really bad explanation for a universe like our own, hence the quote by Epicurus above, and two thousand years of surreal arguments grouped under the heading of “theodicy”.
John C
Admittedly, I am not very familiar with the Bible. Is there an appendix at the end that tells you that any reference to God or an angel “descending” from heaven is really just referring to a “higher plane”, rather than physically above us? Or, do you and others just interpret it that way so as to make the definition of heaven more vague and undefinable, which therefore makes it harder to refute?
Mcblog-
I do not interp anything purposefully to make something harder to refute….I thought by now you would have known that, irregardless of communication “challenges” I am sincere in what I have shared…yes I really live (believe) the eternal realities over the natural, physical one.
Not all “christians” believe what I do. The pilgrimmage is a journey. I committed to the entire journey…said lord I dont “see”, please help to see. In this manner I have seen so much and been open to a greater reality than the one we “see”. We see so much more when we admit that we dont see than when we think we see for ourselves.
Again, I realize that statement will not be fully understood or appreciated. All I’ve been trying to say is that THERE IS MORE, THERE IS A LIFE we dont see with our natural eyes in the same way that we dont see the quantum (unseen, eternal realities) but they are very real.
Thx McB…I enjoy our discussions (you and I) cuz even if you think Im a nutjob you keep things at a higher level of dialogue, I appreciate you for that.
John
McBlog-
Maybe this will help..lets try a visual:
This is how I see man’s being. Draw or picture an oval, or football shape standing upright. Now draw two horizontal lines, one near the top, the other near the bottom in a 10/80/10 way. So we have Flesh, Soul & Spirit in that order from top to bottom with the midde (soul) being the largest.
Those of us that live out of that lowest portion of our humanity (flesh realm) consequently exhibit and inflict on others the lower, harmful behaviors that plague us today.
The majority live out of the middle (soulish) or natural realm of their being with varying degrees. This is a vast realm with many noble qualities and yet many undesirable or unhealthy including the rule-keeping of “religion”.
Those that live out of the highest portion (spirit) have penetrated into the spiritual realm or the kingdom of heaven within that Jesus spoke of. Here there is no duality, no potential for both good & evil…only good.
This is, I believe the true meaning of the verse that reads “the kingdom suffers violence, and the violent take it (ascend, pierce thru) by force”. They are simply not satisfied to reside (in their consciousness) in the other states. So we hear things like…the kingdom of heaven (within) is not meat and drink (tangible, physical) things but rather righteousness, peace and joy in the holy SPIRIT.
This is why I say the life that Christ offers is not a religious one, but an inward spiritual liberty. Of course this can not be “seen” by the natural eyes nor adequately described being foreign to natual mans reasoning and estimation.
This is just how I see it, many (including “christians”) will disagree with my assertions.
Thx for keeping it lively…lol
John
@John C.
So we had this marvellous internal sort of life, then lost it. Until you stumbled upon it?
You have to admit that aside from a very small handful of very fringey people, there aren’t a lot of people advancing anything quite like the theory you describe.
Re obfuscation. I haven’t checked, I think–did you answer yes or no to the yes or no question I asked earlier? Let’s go and have a look.
Ah, here it is. My question was:
And here’s your answer:
I understood the “no” part. The rest requires some clarification. That is, it seems a bit … obfuscated, one might say.
You seem to say faith isn’t required. Yet you use words like “God” and “Christ”–words requiring faith to justify their existence. To say nothing of the mystic realms of indwelt-ness.
You corrected my question, but failed to answer the one you raised. So I’ll ask: How DO I get Christ to take up residence inside me?
@wintermute:
Well said. I should have left it at “omnipotent”.
Offer cookies?
“Offer cookies?”
Tried that. He got snippy because they weren’t kosher.
BTW, for those who care, Peter Kirby has gotten the Early Christian Writings site back up.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Thanks Met…I will try…bear with me if you will as I attempt to answer your question which is challenging enough amongst professing Christians let alone this forum…lol. First, a review is a pre-requisite.
So, how do we get Him to take up residence in…us?
The mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed… to make known…the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
And…
Don’t you know that you are the temple of God and that the spirit of God dwells in you?
And…
Be lifted up, you ancient doors (of our hearts), so that the king of glory may come in.
And…
Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
And…
As many as are led by the spirit, these are the Sons of God.
I have not “stumbled” upon this truth…but was simply willing to continue the journey receiving more and more at each and every turn. I have a long way to go but am grateful for being on the…light path…ha. You are correct in that I am in the minority with respect to my assertions but I did not arrive at this place in the journey casually.
This is a central theme, many of the things I believe (live) would be disputed (some vehemently) by the well-learned scholars of the so-called Christian faith. Many are simply religious (law-keepers devoid of love). I am no better, simply a bigger “fool”. It is not a belief system that saves but He himself and He is love.
First, please understand that while I have spoken metaphorically in previous posts this is not the case with the “mystical” indwelling presence of Christ. His spirit in us is imparted literally and substantively (the substance of spirit) an ever expanding tree of life within naturally producing the fruits of the spirit in our lives which are love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self-control. Notice which one is…number one.
First, an old quote concerning our common yet contentious ground:
Upon the plane of the mystical, reason no longer possesses that strength and power, which it has within philosophy, for then it is upon a trans-rational plane. A man, caught up into the mystical plane, into a mystic contemplation, then “becomes bereft of the reliance upon reason”, he surmounts reason. Does reason become altered or otherwise enlightened by revelation in what has been received upon the mystical plane?
There were two trees in the garden…of man…and there still are. Jesus grafts us back into this original matrix, the One Tree, the tree of life which is Christ. Originally we were spiritual in nature…created in His image and likeness, (God is spirit, not form) whole, not fractured in our love and loyalties. We had one God not many lovers as we do today (for where your treasure is there will your heart be found also).We knew where we had come from and where we were going (like the God-man Jesus). We had no identity crisis. There was no duality, only a garden (within) of innocence and purity. The roots of death & decay were timbered in man through the partaking of the tree of independence, or self. I believe this is the deeper meaning of the prodigal son story, in that in Adam we as a species went “out” demanded our independence and in Christ come back to the Father…who is ever waiting to receive us and is looking for our return. He has a Father’s heart.
Mankind had so devolved in his consciousness over the generations that he had essentially forgotten (had paternal amnesia) who he was in the beginning. Jesus, in part came to remind us of who we really are & were. So God re-inserts His DNA (substance of spirit) back into mankind through Jesus’ flesh in a daring raid into hostile (still hostile today) enemy territory. God saying this is my son in whom I am well-pleased. So Jesus is the pattern Son if you will the first of many. When His disciples asked Him to teach them to pray He began with…Our Father in heaven…So if God is our Father too and He is from heaven then what does that make Jesus (and us) but our older brother in the family of God and where are we (originally) from?…heaven. Now we come to understand our true spiritual ancestry & lineage or paternity. Jesus said that when we’ve seen Him we’ve seen the Father that is His nature, character being perfectly expressed through Jesus. And so it should be with us we can either be full of ourselves, our old inherited nature or we can be full of Him, His nature within. Gold.
So how do we re-attain to this originality, this spiritual paternity, belonging?
We don’t…it’s a Him thing…again. We never really become like Jesus, but rather as we empty ourselves…of ourselves…He becomes Himself in us would be a better analogy. Paul implored us to have this same mindset, attitude that Jesus had in Him, who…made Himself of no reputation, did not hold to His human ancestry, identity but emptied (humbled) Himself even to the point of death. And so it is with us but the death we experience is the death of our old, former self and identity. This is why Jesus says not to call anyone (on earth) your Father (paternity), meaning source of origin, for we are “of” Him when we are born of His spirit. We are transplanted back into the heavenly (spiritual) vineyard wherefrom we originated in the soil of His love.
Obviously, this in no way appeals to our sense of reason but to the realm of the spirit or heart within. Reason will adamantly oppose this foolishness considering it a most risky and vulnerable proposition but reason does not know LOVE. Now we hear Jesus say that if we want to enter in to this kingdom (here and now, within) that we must become as children. Children just love, they trust their Father implicitly. They have no cynicism, no fear of love. One of my favorite quotes along these same lines is from the old 19th century Scottish God-lover, poet, author George Macdonald saying: “Have you met our King…there He is laughing and playing with children saying they are like Him”. He hides Himself from the proud, the self-fulfilled but reveals Himself to the humble, the empty (who in and of themselves have no self-sufficiency but find themselves lacking).
Couple parables Jesus shared…The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and planted in his field (his body, in him) which indeed is the smallest of all seeds but when it is grown, it becomes a great tree and…The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in a field, which when a man has found, he hides, and for joy thereof goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field.
As a friend said like the parable Jesus gave, having discovered the whereabouts of the treasure (in the field – our bodies) we sell all we have (external values, beliefs, what we hold onto, our old identities, etc in order to purchase the field wherein the treasure lies, US. We have this treasure in (our) earthen vessels…Christ IN you, the hope of glory (meaning our original state in God).The kingdom of heaven is within you. You may call to mind the “mining” analogies I made a while back asking if there was anything or anyone worth digging for…in you.
Yes…humility in its true sense, the lowering, emptying of ourselves is helpful. We have to want Him and guard our hearts. He said (paraphrased) its good for you if you are found to be poor in spirit (lacking) in and of yourself, for the kingdom belongs to such and its good for you (blessed) if you hunger and thirst…for then you will be filled…w/Him. We are not truly hungry (in any sense) when we are full, but only when we are empty…of ourselves. This emptying creates a condition of hunger…we begin to make room to be filled as we become increasingly…humble. So we see Jesus asking a sick man a silly question…do you WANT to be made well? And that is the same question He asks us today.
In my own experience (nearly a quarter century ago) I had become extremely desperate for an answer to an inner craving so very intense I could not help but find the full remedy to…lest I die…kind of intensity. I somehow knew this to be of God, but like many, I wrongly assumed the answer would be found in a church or building somewhere. So I began (desperately) to drive to random church buildings and ask, inquire of strangers as for an answer. I got nowhere…no one could help me at these churches. They didn’t seem to be hungry like I was either. The hunger only increased, I was only getting emptier.
Btw…what I describe is very similar (at the time I was not aware of his famous story) to the online autobiography of George Fox penned by (ironically) William Penn. Great reading, historical account and truly (better than I can) reveals the process of how one becomes inwardly renewed and comes to the light within. The old saying, you can’t know a God that lives up in the sky but you can know one who lives in you…and me.
Keep in mind that dreaded thing called religion has been a great hindrance to many as they associate it with Christ’s message which is actually a polar opposite in that it brings life, light & liberty while religion (endless rule-keeping devoid of love) is binding and oppressive and only results in greater despair. I was searching for authenticity without pretense, hypocrisy or fabrication. I wanted only the real deal or nothing at all.
The faith you speak of being something we manufacture, or required of us is actually tied to the very hunger He gives us and that faith is also a gift of God…scripture says He has given to each a measure of faith and that it is a gift of God so we can not “make Him do anything”, it’s a free gift therefore we can make no claim on it. Its not about us, it’s about Him…in us, He supplies it all.
We come to TRUTH Himself in the PERSON of Jesus Christ. Then we know the truth and that truth causes us to become free, Christ ruling and reigning within on the throne of our (liberated) hearts, now free from the bondage of self, that old, corrupted nature we inherited from Adam with all his negative traits, besetting sins, etc, now Christ (the second) Adam does away with (as we appropriate, live out the truths within) the old nature and we become partakers of His divine (spiritual) nature being re-grafted in to the original, tree of life…Christ. It’s a whole new life. Paraphrased, He says don’t live your own life, let me live mine (higher life) through you.
Eventually, I ended up receiving His spirit by simply “coming to Him” just as He said to receive this new life asking for it (His spirit) to enter into mine by the gift of faith He provided as promised during my season of hunger. The details of my personal story, while amazing are too long for me to share here since this is already way too lengthy. Jesus told the religious leaders who were big fans of the law, OT that they search there that they might find life (Him) but they won’t come unto ME (Jesus) that you might receive this life. He is a person and thus we relate, by faith (that He supplies) personally. He made the ear…He can hear…you.
If someone becomes hungry (aware of their inward self insufficiency) in the same (severe) manner, they can be certain this is of Him. I realize this is a strong statement.
It all starts with humility. So we hear these words…do not be high-minded, but associate with the humble and DO NOT BE WISE IN YOUR OWN OPINION (in and of yourself, because it will only serve as a barrier). Humility (emptiness) is the gateway, then, we can begin to get hungry…and be filled. Lord, I don’t see, please help me to see…rather than…not only do I see for myself but I am satisfied in and of myself…lacking nothing (inwardly) speaking.
Then we hear you must be born from above of the spirit this time as opposed to our first, natural, physical birth. And then as many as received Him (Jesus) to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe on His name…who were born, not of blood, or the will of man (like our first birth) but this second, spiritual birth is by the will of God. And that which is born of flesh is of a natural, fleshly nature, but that which is born of spirit is of a spiritual nature.
We transition from mere natural men to spiritual men, like our original matrix where spirit was the pure, dominating influence and all things being in order. Not religious, but spiritual, love being the soil by which our (true, original) nature now transplanted back within us grows. A heart transplant is mans greatest need for where else do all these evil actions that plague humanity originate from, except from the heart (inner thoughts, deep center) of his being. They come “out” of man, the unregenerate, un-renewed mind. So we are told to be renewed in the spirit of our minds.
So in the cross, we died with Him and in Him (this is scripturally based, not merely my interp) that is our old nature and we are resurrected into new life, eternal life in Him if we believe. So He says now…I am in you and you are in me. Now the “smallest seed” grows into a giant tree (of His light & life) within if we commit to the journey with Him and trust Him to do what He says He will do which is to restore us and our hearts (quality of our inner lives) back to the original matrix…man at peace with God within. Therefore, having been justified by (the faith He has given us) we have PEACE with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. The simplicity is a stumbling block to many. He translates us from darkness into the kingdom of the son of His love. We receive mercy, forgiveness and love.
The kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force…we want it…badly.
Christ in you, is the pinnacle intention of the Father’s heart and man’s joy and very remedy for humanity.
So we hear…Awake, sleeper! Rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.
&
It is high time to awake out of sleep…the night is far spent…let us put on the armor of light…and put on the Lord Jesus Christ….the original mold.
&
Lord I will be satisfied when I awake in your likeness.
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter and the glory of Kings (that’s us) to search it out.
You can go to http://www.projectplaylist.com and punch in under search bob bennett “you’re welcome here” beautiful song if you want which is descriptive of this indwelling in our house.
There is a life…
Humble…Hunger…Believe…Ask…Receive…Live…Love!
Thanks for your collective tolerance of dissenting viewpoints, its very admirable.
Now I know how Tele feels with those super long posts! lol
Thats a lot of witnessing for someone who claims not to be here to proselytize.
Not that anyone will actually read it.
Aor-
Hey, how you doing?
It was actually a response to one who asked…just tried to do it justice.
Have a good week.
@John C.
I believe that’s the clearest, most coherent response you’ve posted here. I actually almost wish I could feel what it is you feel.
But the stumbling block is reason. I can no more abandon reason than I can abandon my arm, and for much the same cause. It assists me in dealing with the world.
Taking stuff purely on faith may work for children. It seems to work for you. But no-one has explained to me how to do it–to disconnect from myself so much that I abandon thought for feeling without proof. This is not an act of will. I can no more stop thinking than I can stop my heart.
No-one has rationalized to me why I should believe in the unseen without proof. And no-one has ever been able to prove to me the superiority of one theism over another.
On my journey to atheism, I have at times stopped to ask for some indication that I was wrong. I’ve never heard an answer.
@Metro-
Fair enough…thx for reading it…I tried and…I got a little carried away…lol.
Its a journey, journey on my friend…
John
Winter-
More like…when your (own) cookie of SELF crumbles…
Try not to chip a “tooth of truth” along the way!
JC
So . . . how many other people commented to Daniels on his site about this? After all, that’s the place where it would actually affect some change!
If there is any interest, in the time I have available to me, I’ve written a rather lengthy reply to the mentioned Charlie Daniels essay at one of my blogs – http://tinyurl.com/b8jy76 . It contains things I might have said here but, in the interest of being as thorough in response as I’m currently able, I thought it best to post it elsewhere without filling up the comment section here with my own bit of tedium. I hope you’ll take a look and let me know there – or here – your impressions. I’m always open to civil discourse. I admit to the likelihood much of what I’ve written could be improved and may need to be thoroughly discarded for something better. Please spare me such comments if at all possible. Such as it is, I believe it a good start at a rational response to the essay and, perhaps, a good response to any thinking in agreement with Mr. Daniels’ sentiments. From experience, I believe we all know there to be many such persons.
Thanks.
Sorry to tell you but atheism is indeed a religion. Just as I have faith that God does exist, Atheists have the faith that he does NOT exist. So what if it doesn’t have a book (“The Extended Phenotype”), any churches, or any leaders (Richard Dawkins). It is still based on faith whether or not you like to admit it. And @ Aor, God doesn’t not keep us safe from 9/11 nor does he make it happen. God does not cause every phenomenon. He interferes a LOT less than people think. But if anyone has questions, or wishes to debate me further about this topic, then please e-mail me. :)
Hahaha Metro, you are funny. I actually feel bad that you can’t seem to grasp the simple concept that there is more to the world than what is able to be seen. This principle presents itself even in science, as we cannot see atoms, molecules, DNA, cells, microorganisms, and many other things. Since you haven’t heard the answer to your question about Atheism being wrong or not, I’ll give you one. It is wrong and illogical. Please e-mail me if you have further ideologies that you’d like to be squashed. :)
Charlie Daniels best fiddle his ass back down ta’ Georgia n’ run his bow up his ass a few times:) cuz:
RELIGION = A GODDAMN SCAM + GOD = AN IMAGINARY FAIRY
Atheism may not be a religion, but it undeniably shares many of the same qualities of a religion. I think that’s the point that most try to make when they make the comparison between the two. Atheism is an ideology just like a religion is. Both have a point of view. Atheism’s point of view is just defined, to some degree, in opposition to religions point of view. However, the inescapable fact is that there is more common ground between them.
There’s belief in the rightness of their point of view. Religion that there is a deity; atheism’s there isn’t. Both build on the foundation of assumptions, which are unprovable. Religion can’t prove God, no more than Logic can prove that logic is correct. Science also rests on assumptions. The list could continue since both share the same qualities of an ideology or philosophy.
The differences are substantial though. I liken the differences to the up or down or left and right. We know that atheism and religion are essentially opposites of each other, just like up and down. However, up and down are still directions, similarly atheism and religion are still ideologies.
One Trackback
[...] 9, 2009 by Daniel Florien Here’s great quote from one of our faithful commenters, Ty: I am an atheist. I don’t oppose god, not any more than I oppose unicorns. I do, however, [...]