tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3461877683675177162.post4586134508200789519..comments2023-10-27T03:22:49.365-04:00Comments on Avert Your Eye: Unconditional Love: An Atheist's SermonTeleprompterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3461877683675177162.post-15411397415121322652009-02-12T01:44:00.000-05:002009-02-12T01:44:00.000-05:00(By the way, I am still Player Piano - I just chan...(By the way, I am still Player Piano - I just changed my title to match the other places where I post).<BR/><BR/>@ sunnyskeptic:<BR/><BR/>Sigh.<BR/><BR/>I have heard those things before, and it depresses me greatly. Just look above and see comments in this thread; that's as far as you have to go to see it.<BR/><BR/>It is disappointing that most people don't think about their own morality -- is it consistent, is it coherent? Are people sincere in following this Jesus figure or not?<BR/><BR/>Personally, I have no idea whether or not there was a Jesus. It honestly wouldn't surprise if there wasn't one, as incoherent and disorganized as the narrative is in many places.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, if there really was a guy who went around teaching and a few took liberties with it, that wouldn't surprise me, either.<BR/><BR/>Either way, the current situation is pathetic. Bible-based morality or morality based on any other scripture is especially tenuous because individual believers get to pick and choose which parts they want to follow - a lot of Christians and other theists are basically using the same partially subjective standards that I use, but the scary part is this: many believers give their subjective judgments the weight of objective authority!<BR/><BR/>I don't utilize the Bible as historical evidence, but there's no way to confirm whether or not there was a Jesus or a Jesus-like person. I don't know...and until further evidence comes in, I'm comfortable with that.<BR/><BR/>The churches are so far out of line with what Jesus taught I'm pretty sure he wouldn't even be a Christian today.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, the stuff about gays mentioned once or twice off-handedly is vastly more important than the five or six times Jesus mentions *directly* that believers must give up their possessions??<BR/><BR/>Inane, confusing, contradictory, chaotic, and incoherent.<BR/><BR/>And until the last year or so, I believed it.<BR/><BR/>I was even afraid of atheists for a long time, and the subject of atheism in general made me very nervous. We have a lot of work to do.<BR/><BR/>Sigh.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3461877683675177162.post-47176138281821223262009-02-11T20:54:00.000-05:002009-02-11T20:54:00.000-05:00They will tell you that you can't love, that you c...They will tell you that you can't love, that you can't be thankful for anything, and that you can't possibly know that it's wrong to molest a child or to rape a person... It just goes with the territory that their morality is so completely tenuous. Pretty scary to me.<BR/><BR/>I'll also just tell you the truth, and that is that I seriously doubt that jesus was even a real person, probably more of an amalgamation of people, a legend. There seems to be more and more evidence for this, and less and less of him as one person. Unless, of course, you utilize the bible as historical evidence, which it absolutely is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3461877683675177162.post-260074940065096232009-01-21T10:41:00.000-05:002009-01-21T10:41:00.000-05:00PlayaI enjoyed your post very much, and actually a...Playa<BR/><BR/>I enjoyed your post very much, and actually agreed with much of it. I could understand where you were coming from even though I have a Christian point of view. <BR/><BR/>When it comes to religion, I'm not all that impressed either. I will agree however it is comforting to know how religion is helping to provide necessities like food, clothes, hospitals etc. around our globe.<BR/><BR/>But I'd be a hypocrite to suggest that if it was up to me alone, that I wouldn't chose Christianity as the only religion. See, I too think it is silly how man try's to defend his religion and his beliefs and what extent he goes in order to do these things. But let's not let that cloud our judgment of who God is.<BR/><BR/>Is God love? Although the church might say "you have to do this or that or God wont love you" The bible says = But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.(Rom 5:8)<BR/><BR/>The verses you referenced about fearing God, we have a different understanding of. Yes we are to fear God, but it is for our benefit. Why should you fear man or try to impress men when it is God who holds your eternity in his hands. (Heb 13:6)<BR/><BR/>I feel bad for people who think that God has a score card with all their wrong doings in it. I can't speak for others, but he has no records of my sins, past, present or future. (2 Cor. 5:19)<BR/><BR/>Talk with you soon. Peace Out feenofeenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07483769284197614547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3461877683675177162.post-56550949568224406152009-01-19T20:12:00.000-05:002009-01-19T20:12:00.000-05:00Andrew,Maybe I am kidding around about debunking r...Andrew,<BR/><BR/>Maybe I am kidding around about debunking religion? Yes, there are certain forms of religion which I would like to debunk.<BR/><BR/>I do not tolerate fundamentalism very well, in any of its guises: economic, political, or religious fundamentalism. It is the largest threat to human survival. Almost all of our problems can be traced back to some form of it.<BR/><BR/>Any religion that says our innate human nature is to blame for the calamities of this world, and that our innate human nature condemns us to an eternity of suffering after we die, is a form of religion which I will be happy to debunk. <BR/><BR/>However, I also believe that there are many positive forms of religion which are useful and bring people together. However, truth is not dependant upon utility. Personally, I feel that truth will set you free, as the Bible ironically states.<BR/><BR/>John W. Loftus has an agenda to debunk evangelical Christianity? Really? And you're pretending that it isn't perfectly obvious to everyone? It's in his FAQ, for crying out loud! It's the stated purpose of his blog - and that surprises you? What else were you thinking?<BR/><BR/>Yes, he brags about it, because he's good at it. John has effective arguments, whether you want to admit it or not. However, I have not yet read his book. I have ordered it and it is shipping at the moment. ;)<BR/><BR/>Now, you have suggested that Loftus' agenda makes him a fundamentalist.<BR/><BR/>I just want to get this straight, Andrew:<BR/><BR/>What is your definition of a "fundamentalist"? Do you feel that anyone who has an agenda is a "fundamentalist".<BR/><BR/>George Washington had an agenda to rebel against the British Empire and help bring the U.S.A. into existence. Who cares: fundamentalist by your logic!<BR/><BR/>Martin Luther King, Jr. had an agenda to advance racial equality in America. Who cares: fundamentalist by your logic!<BR/><BR/>Gandhi had an agenda to bring independance to India. Who cares: fundamentalist by your logic!<BR/><BR/>I am proud to be labeled as a fundamentalist if that is your precise definition of the word. <BR/><BR/>Andrew, would you like to try a different approach now? I don't think this is working for you very well.<BR/><BR/>As I said earlier, I believe sincerely that in a marketplace of free ideas, my arguments can stand on their own. This is why I let you speak. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for coming back to discuss these things with me.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3461877683675177162.post-88781868150634037632009-01-19T20:01:00.000-05:002009-01-19T20:01:00.000-05:00Andrew,Thanks for coming back to my blog. I wish ...Andrew,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for coming back to my blog. I wish you would've addressed my responses to your previous comments, but I'll take your silence as an admission that I've made my points.<BR/><BR/>What's with all this love stuff? Are you implying that an atheist can't be a loving person?<BR/><BR/>The only part of your worldview which I deny is the god part, the supernatural part. I don't have a precise, fully comprehensive definition of what love is. I'd say that love is the recognition that there is something more important than yourself. Now, you may suggest that for an atheist, there should not be anyone more important than the individual. However, I disagree. I am concerned about the suffering of my fellow human beings and their welfare, especially the people I know, and that is why I love them. Your suggestion that love is merely a biochemical reaction is equivalent to saying that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is merely notes on a scale, played by instruments. And you would accuse me of denying a larger sense of meaning in our lives?<BR/><BR/>Also, I don't care whether or not John W. Loftus says the universe is absurd. Do you know why? Because John W. Loftus is not my puppet-master, and I am not his puppet or his servant. I'm fully capable of thinking for myself, thank you. That doesn't mean that I don't admire Loftus' arguments or agree with a lot of what he says, but I am proud of my individuality.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, I think John Loftus is correct. <BR/><BR/>The universe IS absurd. Of course, almost everything good or bad is absurd. I think it's absurd that I overslept this morning. I think it's absurd that I'm going to college, while my ancestors just a few generations back were denied the opportunity. A great number of both good and bad things in our world are very absurd. How do you deny this?<BR/><BR/>Spelling? Why should I care about John Loftus' spelling? What do you think I am - some kind of pedant? I don't even know who that is, and furthermore, I don't see how that is relevant to this discussion.<BR/><BR/>Also, there is a lot of chance in our lives. How do you deny this?<BR/><BR/>What do you think happened? I'd like to hear your alternative explanation. <BR/><BR/>"Chance did it?" or "God(s) did it?" What do you think?Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3461877683675177162.post-19141140319034343192009-01-19T04:55:00.000-05:002009-01-19T04:55:00.000-05:00I notice you say one of your goals is not to debun...I notice you say one of your goals is not to debunk religion.<BR/><BR/>I think you are trying to kid around there, but whatever, we know that the Loftus goal is to debunk religion.<BR/><BR/>Not to understand, not to investigate, but to debunk.<BR/><BR/>In that sense, just like any fundamentalist, he has an agenda.<BR/><BR/>And it isn't an honest one, as he REPEATEDLY brags.Emanuel Goldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02653303041185240250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3461877683675177162.post-20957175499671521182009-01-19T04:51:00.000-05:002009-01-19T04:51:00.000-05:00What's with all this love stuff, coming from an at...What's with all this love stuff, coming from an atheist.<BR/><BR/>In your worldview...whether you deny having one or not...love can be nothing more than a biochemical reaction.<BR/><BR/>And off topic, but did you know that John Loftus' defenders at Sophies Ladder are denying that he EVER said the universe is absurd.<BR/><BR/>But he did.<BR/><BR/>Page 403 of his book..."This universe is absurd when we try to figure it out."<BR/><BR/>He also quote Jacques Monod to back him up, "Our number came up in the Monte Carlo game."<BR/><BR/>But he spells Monod as MONAD so he doesn't seem to be all that familiar with him.<BR/><BR/>John's reasoning in support of atheism...which is really only in the next to the last chapter...lead him to conclude, HIS WORDS:<BR/><BR/>Chance did it.<BR/><BR/>A great Loftusism, don't you think?<BR/><BR/>"Chancdidit". LOL!Emanuel Goldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02653303041185240250noreply@blogger.com