Christianity

[iambiguous]

There is no afterlife. The reason men try to be good is not so they will be rewarded in Heaven, or after Judgement Day. The reason we try to be good and true is that we love goodness and truth. Love is its own reward.

Of course, here, the same thing.

While, to the best of my knowledge, IC has never been able to demonstrate that there is an afterlife -- Heaven, Hell -- has Belinda been able to demonstrate that there is not one? Again, not to my knowledge. She just employs another font to anchor her own rendition of what it means to be "good and true".

Okay, given what set of circumstances? For example, some love guns, some hate them.

In being "good and true" how ought mere mortals in a No God world react to them?

Which "authority" should prevail here?

[Belinda]

There is no afterlife. The reason men try to be good is not so they will be rewarded in Heaven, or after Judgement Day. The reason we try to be good and true is that we love goodness and truth. Love is its own reward.

Of course, here, the same thing.

While, to the best of my knowledge, IC has never been able to demonstrate that there is an afterlife -- Heaven, Hell -- has Belinda been able to demonstrate that there is not one? Again, not to my knowledge. She just employs another font to anchor her own rendition of what it means to be "good and true".

Okay, given what set of circumstances? For example, some love guns, some hate them.

In being "good and true" how ought mere mortals in a No God world react to them?

Which "authority" should prevail here?

What is more probable: that IC needs and desires his belief package to be true, or that my belief package includes that I cannot show there is no afterlife?

[Immanuel Can]

There's no need to buy Xianity an entire package.No individual survives death there is no so-called 'life after death'. We can keep the good bits but not the supernatural bits.

That "sounds good," but only until one thinks about it.

When one does, one realizes that if there's nothing after life, then there's absolutely no reason at all to deny oneself anything one might be inclined to do or have.

Exactly!

No God? Then, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. Which is why down through the ages countless God have been invented. In order that, within any particular community, all things are not permitted.

Well, no...you don't know that. In fact, you have no reason even to suppose it, based on the mere observaton that believe in God is "useful" for something.

Just because something proves "useful" for some reason does not imply it's false. It just implies it's "useful," in addition to whatever truth properties it does or does not have. For example, belief in good diet is "useful" for preventing obesity. That doesn't mean that the rules of diet are merely invented for the purpose of being useful...they're fundamental biological realities. They're actually true. You only ignore them at your peril.

But even among the No God folks all things are not permitted. Why?

Nietzsche's answer was simple: lack of courage.

Because out in the real world there are always going to be consequences given the behaviors that you choose. Others might react angerly to what you do. There might even be laws against it. Punishments. So, for all practical purposes, all things are permitted...but only if you can get away with them.

But this adds no insight to the question. That Neitzsche's untermenschen are resentful and try to prevent the ubermenschen from having their way is neither here nor there: the ubermenschen simply overpower or outmanoeuver the foolish untermenschen, with their foolish, weakling notions of morality. They may have to be cunning, but they have no duty to be good.

Now, for the God folks though, the hard part: actually demonstrating that it is your God and only your God that does in fact exist.

Not that hard.

Almost all of the human race, in fact, has taken it to be the most obvious interpretation of the evidence. It turns out that skepticism is the rare taste, one possibly possessed by around 4% of the modern world's population, according to the CIA factbook, and certainly a much smaller sampling of humanity before the last century.

So the burden is on the Atheist to show that his no-God is possible. The default interpretation of all the evidence appears to be, by vast majority, that some sort of God must exist.

Beyond that lies the question, "What kind of God?" But if the Atheist were right, and there's no God, that question couldn't even be asked: so we have to set it aside until the first matter is settled.

So what's your evidence of no-Godness?

And this is of vital importance because of what is at stake on both sides of the grave.

Well, this is quite true.

[Immanuel Can]

What is more probable: that IC needs and desires his belief package to be true, or that my belief package includes that I cannot show there is no afterlife?

Why should not both be true? Maybe I DO "need and desire" something here. Maybe I don't.

But what has the first got to do with the question of truth? If I "need and desire" my beliefs to be true, that doesn't suggest they're false; they might also be true. If I didn't "need and desire" them, would they then automatically become false? Neither idea makes any sense.

But that you cannot show there is no afterlife is highly believable. I think we can accept that. I'm not sure what it contributes to our knowledge of what the truth is, though.

[iambiguous]

There is no afterlife. The reason men try to be good is not so they will be rewarded in Heaven, or after Judgement Day. The reason we try to be good and true is that we love goodness and truth. Love is its own reward.

Of course, here, the same thing.

While, to the best of my knowledge, IC has never been able to demonstrate that there is an afterlife -- Heaven, Hell -- has Belinda been able to demonstrate that there is not one? Again, not to my knowledge. She just employs another font to anchor her own rendition of what it means to be "good and true".

Okay, given what set of circumstances? For example, some love guns, some hate them.

In being "good and true" how ought mere mortals in a No God world react to them?

Which "authority" should prevail here?

What is more probable: that IC needs and desires his belief package to be true, or that my belief package includes that I cannot show there is no afterlife?

Okay, that's reasonable. You post that there is no afterlife above, but by this you mean that "here and now" "in your head" you don't believe that there is one. Also, that, in regard to things like abortion and guns and all of the other moral conflagrations that beset mere mortals, you believe "in your head" there are "good and true" convictions one can have. But that others might honestly and sincerely come to very different conclusions regarding this than you do.

The part I root existentially in dasein, but that others root in things like ideology or deontology or nature. The moral objectivists.

That crucial distinction I make between what one does believe here and now and what one can demonstrate that other rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

[Dontaskme]

There is no afterlife. The reason men try to be good is not so they will be rewarded in Heaven, or after Judgement Day. The reason we try to be good and true is that we love goodness and truth. Love is its own reward.

What a sweet land you live in! Goodness, truth and love are always rewarded...

No, B., they are not. C.S. Lewis perceptively writes,

“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.”

Love and pain are companions. Let the person who has ever "loved and lost" tell you that.

Belinda is right.

You are wrong IC


I should know that love is it’s own reward. I’ve experienced and witnessed this truth directly.

So you are just wrong and so is CSL

[Harbal]

But one would be silly not to make meaningful distinctions between, say, that which is presented as poetry (Song of Songs) and that which is presented as historical narrative, or to pretend that there is simply NO historical data to verify, say, the existence of the travels of Paul or Christ as an actual person. So we cannot say that the Bible is ALL allegorical or ALL literal: we have to say something much more intelligent -- that it is both literal and allegorical.

I don't know how much historical narrative there is in the Bible, but I'm pretty sure that the creation story and Noah's ark are not among it.

That's Deism. It "wins" small, but "loses" big. What it would mean is that God is no longer interested in us, has no present plans nor future intentions for us, and really has left us orphans in a mechanistic universe that has no ultimate purpose. That's a creed one can adopt, but it has not been a popular one since the 18th Century, perhaps, because of its many and obvious shortcomings. It's not really a "win" for anybody.

Well, as I'm sure you know, it isn't my creed, but it is certainly one that I find more acceptable than what the Bible offers in the way of plausibility. Even though we both dismiss it as being unlikely, I don't agree with you that its not being a win for anybody affects its credibility. I think that actually says something about how you come to have a creed that you do consider to be a win. Coincidence?

Well, let me see if I can deliver myself, even a little, of that charge.

I'm afraid your reputation has already made that a hopeless endeavour. It's what many of us have come to know and love you for.

If one has already decided there CAN BE no God, then what can any statement about God look like to him but superstitious babbling? And what can any attempt to defend such language look like, but delusory or disingenuous?

With me. as I suspect with most non-believers, it was the other way round. When I was very young I just accepted that God was, just as any child accepts what is presented to him. It was only when I got older, and became aware of the superstitious babble, that I jettisoned God.

So I'm not surprised. I'm also not offended. It's exactly what I should expect. I only ask that you should hold out some little suspicion, even just hovering on the edge of consciousness, that maybe, just maybe...I'm sincere.

My relationship with you is such that I have no wish to offend you, but it is also such that I want to be able to be straight forward with you, so I am glad you are not offended. I am not questioning your sincerity in respect of what you say you believe in. It is more when you are trying to undermine the arguments of your antagonists that your respect for the truth tends to slide.

[iambiguous]

That "sounds good," but only until one thinks about it.

When one does, one realizes that if there's nothing after life, then there's absolutely no reason at all to deny oneself anything one might be inclined to do or have.

Exactly!

No God? Then, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. Which is why down through the ages countless God have been invented. In order that, within any particular community, all things are not permitted.

Well, no...you don't know that. In fact, you have no reason even to suppose it, based on the mere observation that believe in God is "useful" for something.

Entertainment, anyone?

Come on, IC, you yourself noted that if there is no afterlife [linked to the Christian God for those like you] "then there's absolutely no reason at all to deny oneself anything one might be inclined to do or have."

Not far removed from, say, what many sociopaths will argue?

I merely note that even atheists live out in the real world. They may rationalize any behavior "in their head", but that doesn't mean choosing any behavior that furthers their own selfish interest won't have consequences for others.

Only you prefer to take it all up into the clouds of abstraction:

Just because something proves "useful" for some reason does not imply it's false. It just implies it's "useful," in addition to whatever truth properties it does or does not have.

Or shift gears from morality to...diets?

For example, belief in good diet is "useful" for preventing obesity. That doesn't mean that the rules of diet are merely invented for the purpose of being useful...they're fundamental biological realities. They're actually true. You only ignore them at your peril.

On the other hand, where does all of this fit into Judgement Day? The part where the diet you choose on this side of the grave is instrumental in determining whether it's just oblivion for you or immortality and salvation?

But even among the No God folks all things are not permitted. Why?

Nietzsche's answer was simple: lack of courage.

Right, like none of it revolves around shrewdness. Calculating when, given any particular set of circumstances, it is far more rational to avoid confronting those able to actually punish you for being entirely selfish.

Thus:

Because out in the real world there are always going to be consequences given the behaviors that you choose. Others might react angerly to what you do. There might even be laws against it. Punishments. So, for all practical purposes, all things are permitted...but only if you can get away with them.

But this adds no insight to the question. That Neitzsche's untermenschen are resentful and try to prevent the ubermenschen from having their way is neither here nor there: the ubermenschen simply overpower or outmanoeuver the foolish untermenschen, with their foolish, weakling notions of morality. They may have to be cunning, but they have no duty to be good.

But that's exactly what you are saying above. No afterlife [linked to the Christian God] means no duty to behave selflessly, righteously. That's the whole point of inventing God. Not only do you have a duty to obey Him but the consequences for not doing your duty on this side of the grave are, well, you tell me. And being cunning or being courageous? Well, that depends. After all there's Nietzsche here...and there's Machiavelli.

Now, for the God folks though, the hard part: actually demonstrating that it is your God and only your God that does in fact exist.

Not that hard.

Almost all of the human race, in fact, has taken it to be the most obvious interpretation of the evidence. It turns out that skepticism is the rare taste, one possibly possessed by around 4% of the modern world's population, according to the CIA factbook, and certainly a much smaller sampling of humanity before the last century.

Right. That sure settles it!

Still, there's your own preferred methods:

1] quoting from the Christian Bible to prove the Christian God does exist
2] those videos

Only you lack the courage to note the clip/segment from the video that most establishes that in fact the Christian does reside in Heaven. Though I suspect it has nothing to do with courage...but with cunning. You're smart enough to know that this clip/segment does not in fact exist at all.

Or does it? Your call, Mr. Wiggle.

Beyond that lies the question, "What kind of God?" But if the Atheist were right, and there's no God, that question couldn't even be asked: so we have to set it aside until the first matter is settled.

No, seriously.

So the burden is on the Atheist to show that his no-God is possible. The default interpretation of all the evidence appears to be, by vast majority, that some sort of God must exist.

Right, the old switcheroo. You claim that a God, the God, your God does in fact exist. But it's incumbent upon me to demonstrate that He doesn't.

The irony here being that over and again I argue that given the staggering mystery embedded in the existence of existence itself, of course a God, the God might be the explanation. Never would I insist that I have definitive proof that He doesn't. Go to those here like Sculptor for that.

Well, this is quite true.

Exactly! Back to all that is at stake here and the fact that if a God, the God does exist, He certainly has done a piss-poor job in providing mere mortals with an indisputable path to Him.

That and this...

...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

[Immanuel Can]

That's Deism. It "wins" small, but "loses" big. What it would mean is that God is no longer interested in us, has no present plans nor future intentions for us, and really has left us orphans in a mechanistic universe that has no ultimate purpose. That's a creed one can adopt, but it has not been a popular one since the 18th Century, perhaps, because of its many and obvious shortcomings. It's not really a "win" for anybody.

...I don't agree with you that its not being a win for anybody affects its credibility....

I didn't say that.

I would say two things about Deism: the first, that it is not true; the second, that believing it for the sake of comfort of some kind is neither reasonable nor effective, because it doesn't actually generate the kinds of comforts one might hope. Not true, not helpful: I would say both, about Deism.

So I would suggest that Deism puts the believer in it in an "on the fence" position. He gets to believe in A "god" of some kind, but not one that is interested in him, or has any plans associated with him, or seeks any relationship with him, or can help him...and so on. At the same time, though, he's not able to grasp the freedom of the total Atheist, either; for he thinks he lives in a world constrained by patterns of mechanistic rules that will punish him if he ignores them. So he lacks the meaningfulness of full belief, but also the freedom of the Atheist. He has neither.

And as one of my old friends used to say, "The only thing you get from sitting on the fence is a sore crotch."

If one has already decided there CAN BE no God, then what can any statement about God look like to him but superstitious babbling? And what can any attempt to defend such language look like, but delusory or disingenuous?

With me, as I suspect with most non-believers, it was the other way round. When I was very young I just accepted that God was, just as any child accepts what is presented to him. It was only when I got older, and became aware of the superstitious babble, that I jettisoned God.

It can go either way, of course, but more commonly yours, perhaps. However, why is that? Is it that faith is inherently childish? Or is it that the kind of childish faith you describe is not enough for a man; and that unless faith grows, sophisticates, and matures with the man, it becomes inadequate, and he abandons it?

So I'm not surprised. I'm also not offended. It's exactly what I should expect. I only ask that you should hold out some little suspicion, even just hovering on the edge of consciousness, that maybe, just maybe...I'm sincere.

My relationship with you is such that I have no wish to offend you, but it is also such that I want to be able to be straight forward with you, so I am glad you are not offended. I am not questioning your sincerity in respect of what you say you believe in. It is more when you are trying to undermine the arguments of your antagonists that your respect for the truth tends to slide.[/quote]
Yet did I not say that I understand why that is? As soon as an objection to the "antagonist" seems penetrating, does it not also immediately arouse suspicion? After all, if the listener takes for granted that God simply CANNOT exist, then some trick must be involved if it ever starts to look, for even a moment, like He might.

It's rather like watching a magician: you see him saw the lady in half. But you already know that ladies cannot be sawed in half and live. You see her head smile; and the magician bids her wiggle her feet, and she does. So even though you can't say you know how he did it, you know the magician has tricked you.

If you assume that God doesn't exist, then any proof He does looks suspect in the same way. Instinctively, you must dismiss it; and if you don't know "how it was done," you must assume you have been tricked. The one thing you've already decided is that the evidence, the proof, the demonstration, the refutation, or whatever it was, CANNOT be true.

But maybe you have not. Do you really know that God does not exist, and know it with the same sort of certainty that you know that live ladies cannot be sawn in half? I suspect not. But you can take inventory of that for yourself...I need not tell you.

[Sculptor]

Deism is a minimum belief for theism.
If you do not accept Deism you cannot be a theist, in the sense that what Deism says is the case has also to be at least true of Theism.

[Immanuel Can]

Exactly!

No God? Then, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. Which is why down through the ages countless God have been invented. In order that, within any particular community, all things are not permitted.

Well, no...you don't know that. In fact, you have no reason even to suppose it, based on the mere observation that believe in God is "useful" for something.

Entertainment, anyone?

Come on, IC, you yourself noted that if there is no afterlife [linked to the Christian God for those like you] "then there's absolutely no reason at all to deny oneself anything one might be inclined to do or have."

Not far removed from, say, what many sociopaths will argue?

Well, you've forgotten that it's not me who said all that: it's Nietzsche. And if you want to call him a "sociopath," I think he's earned the label. His sociopathic behavior was more expressed in the generating of offensive speech than of actual violence, it's true. But he was, by all biographer's accounts, a rather nasty person himself. Maybe he was a sociopath.

For example, belief in good diet is "useful" for preventing obesity. That doesn't mean that the rules of diet are merely invented for the purpose of being useful...they're fundamental biological realities. They're actually true. You only ignore them at your peril.

On the other hand, where does all of this fit into Judgement Day?

It doesn't. No part of my illustration mentioned that. I was merely pointing out that "usefulness" and "truthfulness" are not the same properties, and don't entail each other. I should imagine that's simple enough.

But even among the No God folks all things are not permitted. Why?

Nietzsche's answer was simple: lack of courage.

Right, like none of it revolves around shrewdness. Calculating when, given any particular set of circumstances, it is far more rational to avoid confronting those able to actually punish you for being entirely selfish.

No, I mentioned that. Nietzsche held that the ubermenschen could use cunning to exempt themselves from consequences...and he thought that a real ubermensch would do exactly that.

But that doesn't have anything to do with them being moral; they're merely being strategic, waiting for the chance to seize an advantage or the propitious moment to be courageously wicked.

Either way, there's nothing in the conduct that you could call, or Nietzsche would want to call, "moral."

Because out in the real world there are always going to be consequences given the behaviors that you choose. Others might react angerly to what you do. There might even be laws against it. Punishments. So, for all practical purposes, all things are permitted...but only if you can get away with them.

But this adds no insight to the question. That Neitzsche's untermenschen are resentful and try to prevent the ubermenschen from having their way is neither here nor there: the ubermenschen simply overpower or outmanoeuver the foolish untermenschen, with their foolish, weakling notions of morality. They may have to be cunning, but they have no duty to be good.

But that's exactly what you are saying above. No afterlife [linked to the Christian God] means no duty to behave selflessly, righteously.

That's what Nietzsche is saying. I'm not Nietzsche.

Now, for the God folks though, the hard part: actually demonstrating that it is your God and only your God that does in fact exist.

Not that hard.

Almost all of the human race, in fact, has taken it to be the most obvious interpretation of the evidence. It turns out that skepticism is the rare taste, one possibly possessed by around 4% of the modern world's population, according to the CIA factbook, and certainly a much smaller sampling of humanity before the last century.

Right. That sure settles it!

No, but it puts the burden of proof where it belongs. That's good enough, for the moment.

Beyond that lies the question, "What kind of God?" But if the Atheist were right, and there's no God, that question couldn't even be asked: so we have to set it aside until the first matter is settled.

No, seriously.

Has simple logic escaped you?

If you have no cat, then it would be irrational for me to say, "Yeah, but what kind of cat don't you have?"

Likewise, nobody can ask what kind of God exists, unless we have already been prepared to at least suppose that some kind God exists.

You claim that a God, the God, your God does in fact exist. But it's incumbent upon me to demonstrate that He doesn't.

I don't just claim it. It's rationally necessary that, if I have to have warrant for my belief, you need to have warrant for your claim that God does not exist. Both are true, if you and I think ourselves to be rational men.

How are you doing with that problem?

The irony here being that over and again I argue that given the staggering mystery embedded in the existence of existence itself, of course a God, the God might be the explanation. Never would I insist that I have definitive proof that He doesn't.

Oh, dear: that's a very serious problem for your position, then. It means you have to be an agnostic of some kind. And then you have to suspect that maybe you're just plain wrong.

So then the question becomes, what evidence will you accept? Because you're going to need some, for whichever position you take.

And I know what you'll say: Pope...Rome. And I'll point out that you know Pope...Rome based on rumour. And I'll ask if you're actually trying to tell me you'd believe in God based on rumour, just as you believe the Pope...Rome thing?

And you'll never answer. You'll scoff and run away, because you know you're caught. We've been around this circle already.

[Immanuel Can]

Deism is a minimum belief for theism.
If you do not accept Deism you cannot be a theist, in the sense that what Deism says is the case has also to be at least true of Theism.

No, Deism is its own thing.

Deism agrees with Theism only so far as in that it understands some sort of "god" to be the creator of the universe. It also holds that the universe has a mechanistic, law-like structure, such that only an intelligent creator could have produced it. It may even tip over so far as a sort of "natural law" perspective, in that it can believe that morality is somehow embedded in the created order.

But it denies that the same "god" can do more than set things in mechanical motion and retire the field. God no longer "exists" in any practical way. He's gone picnicking, and he's not coming back. He has no further interest in things, beyond being their "divine watchmaker," to use the old phrase.

In that, it is very different from Judeo-Christian, or even Islamic Theism (though it's much closer to the latter than either of the former). In all three, God is, in some measure, not merely the Creator but personal, as well...aware, active, and often involved in the proceedings. And in Judaism and Christianity, He's more intimately engaged with his Creation than Deism can ever allow.

[Gary Childress]

I'm sorry, IC but after what I've been through with mental illness, sleep apnea, childhood emotional trauma, and other maladies, I don't feel particularly thankful. I don't feel like those challenges have done me any good. Maybe you need to find someone who hasn't suffered as much in life so that you can sit around with them and think happy thoughts about God together. I'm angry and I'm bitter. I feel like I got ripped off compared to many of my peers around me. I'm sorry to be a downer for you. I just wish for relief. Maybe if relief comes I'll be able to agree with you.

Gary, I get it...not first hand, of course, but because I have lived close to somebody who suffered in exactly that sort of way. She was hugely bipolar, and on all kinds of meds, and was the victim of a sexual abuser in her childhood...and also one of the kindest, best people I ever knew. But she suffered. And I'm not going to tell you that it's just a matter of "changing your perspective," or anything pat and silly like that.

But let's look at it from the other side...from your side. From the perspective of your own interests and experiences, that is. And let me ask you this, if I may: what does being angry and bitter, and living accordingly, get you?

It's a sincere question. I'm not being rhetorical or flippant. It's an important question. Where does this bitterness, anger and self-focus get a person? What's the end of this kind of lifestyle? Where are you going, Gary? And how is this present disposition "serving you well," so to speak?

We might also ask, why is it attractive to you? What do you suppose is its pull on you? If it gets you nothing, what is making you want to remain with that strategy, that response?

Those are searching questions, if you take them to heart. Heck, even I could ask myself the same kinds of questions: why am I being the kind of being I am being right now? Is it getting me anywhere? Is it taking me someplace I really think I want to go? Why am I holding onto this? These are all questions for human beings, not just for mentally-afflicted ones.

I'm not going to tell you what the answers are -- I don't know, because I'm not you. But if your current disposition is, as you assess it now, taking you in a bad direction, do you want "out," or are you deciding to stick with it?

You say you got "ripped off" when "compared to many of my peers." Maybe. But then, we often don't know what others have suffered. We just see the success-front they put up for the world, the superficial appearance of happiness and well-being. We don't know their secret trials and sorrows, unless they tell us, do we?

No doubt there must be people around more fortunate than we. But what is that to us? If there were no God, what would even potentially promise us that it should be otherwise? And if it could not be otherwise, are we wise to gripe about what others have, when nothing in the universe even promised us anything but exactly what we got? That makes no sense. And from a Christian perspective, we have a name for that attitude: it's called "covetousness," or "envy," and it's forbidden in the tenth of the big Ten Commandments -- with good reason, since it's not merely evil in itself, but bad for us, as well. Envy gets us nowhere.

Still, it's attractive, I know...because we're not the people we should be...that's for sure. But what's our incentive for staying the bitter, angry, envious people we are choosing to be? Do we actually imagine there's a road to a win in that for us? Does it get us something? Or would we be better to try to find a way out of that attitude, if such can be found?

I turn the question back to you, Gary.

To me your question is like asking what does saying "ouch" when you get hurt do for us. It's just a natural reaction to me. If God doesn't like it when I say "ouch," then I don't know what else to say. Surely saying, "thank you, I'd like another" would be lying and I'm sure God would see right through that lie. I could say nothing at all but that seems to bottle up anguish to the point where it becomes just as unhealthy. To be honest, venting is better to me than suffering in silence.

[Immanuel Can]

To me your question is like asking what does saying "ouch" when you get hurt do for us. It's just a natural reaction to me. If God doesn't like it when I say "ouch," then I don't know what else to say.

Alright: but that wasn't quite the question. The question isn't "Why do you do it," but "What do you get for doing it?"

Because if you're getting nothing, then maybe it's time to consider an alternative, if one's available. Why would you want to persist in a reaction, no matter how natural, that goes nowhere?

So now, maybe it's time for a step back. You can hold onto the past, but it will get you nothing. The past is fixed.

I remember one counsellor saying, "The main job I do is to help people give up hope of having a better past."

Think about that. It's profound. "The hope of having a better past." How can one ever have that? And if one can't, then what does one get for obsessing on the past?

Therapists say that a person is on the way to healing when he starts using a simple phrase: "Next time..." It signals that the patient has ceased circling the past, and has refocussed attention on the possibilities of the future. It means he's stopped staring into the rearview mirror, while still trying to drive the car, and has recentered his eyes on the road. It means he's ready for change.

So this entails a bit of a painful shift. First, we have to give up our (perhaps warranted) feelings of aggrievance, and our childish, petulant demand to "have a better past." That hurts, because we've been nursing ourselves on a grudge. We feel like that if we "let it go," we'll be implying it was "okay," or that it "didn't hurt so much." But we have to give it up, because that's the price of moving forward. Without it, we're stuck forever, in exactly the same misery we've been complaining about.

People don't do it, sometimes; and it's often not because they're too miserable. Paradoxically, it's that they're not miserable enough -- not as miserable as they're telling themselves they are, or as they want others to think they are. They cling to their present misery, because they find the clinging consoling, or they've begun to build their self-image around the role of a pathetic figure, and they don't want to lose their role. If they were really miserable -- if they had hit bottom -- then they'd be ready for anything...even for letting the past go. But right now, they're just not there, yet.

But maybe that's not you. Maybe you're as sad as you want me to think you are. And if you are, then is it not time for a change, Gary? Are you to the point, yet, where you're willing to consider any new possibility, so long as it gets you beyond where you are, or are you determined to soak in your misery?

I can't tell. The language people use, in such situations, is often deceptive. The much-miserable always want others to think they are the abjectly-miserable, even when they're not. But then, the truly abjectly-miserable know they have nothing to lose, and so are ready for change.

So where are you?

[Harbal]

That's Deism. It "wins" small, but "loses" big. What it would mean is that God is no longer interested in us, has no present plans nor future intentions for us, and really has left us orphans in a mechanistic universe that has no ultimate purpose. That's a creed one can adopt, but it has not been a popular one since the 18th Century, perhaps, because of its many and obvious shortcomings. It's not really a "win" for anybody.

...I don't agree with you that its not being a win for anybody affects its credibility....

I didn't say that.

No, you didn't actually say that, but you did seem to imply that it might be a factor in how popular a particular belief might be. The thing is, if the truth is genuinely what you desire, you can't let yourself be influenced by what you would prefer the truth to be. I happen to be one of those people who want the truth, even when it would be better not to have it.

So I would suggest that Deism puts the believer in it in an "on the fence" position. He gets to believe in A "god" of some kind, but not one that is interested in him, or has any plans associated with him, or seeks any relationship with him, or can help him...and so on. At the same time, though, he's not able to grasp the freedom of the total Atheist, either; for he thinks he lives in a world constrained by patterns of mechanistic rules that will punish him if he ignores them. So he lacks the meaningfulness of full belief, but also the freedom of the Atheist. He has neither.

And as one of my old friends used to say, "The only thing you get from sitting on the fence is a sore crotch."

Am I an atheist because it gives me freedom? I don't know. It doesn't seem like that to me, but self assessment is notoriously unreliable. We don't all have the same hopes and fears, and that probably has a lot to do with who embraces Christianity and who doesn't. I don't hope for eternal life, which mean I don't fear eternal oblivion; in fact, I would prefer it, which, I have to admit, also puts me under suspicion of choosing my beliefs according to my preferences. My only defense for that is that I'm just as human as everyone else. I don't believe there is such a thing as The Soul, but, again, I don't want to believe it. It strikes me that there are possible circumstances under which being a disembodied soul might not be a jolly experience. As for sitting on the fence, what choice is there when you simply don't know, and if we are honest with ourselves, who among us can know, let alone does know?

It can go either way, of course, but more commonly yours, perhaps. However, why is that? Is it that faith is inherently childish? Or is it that the kind of childish faith you describe is not enough for a man; and that unless faith grows, sophisticates, and matures with the man, it becomes inadequate, and he abandons it?

Or maybe the concerns he has about his own existence are not of the kind that having your sort of faith would address.

It is more when you are trying to undermine the arguments of your antagonists that your respect for the truth tends to slide.

Yet did I not say that I understand why that is? As soon as an objection to the "antagonist" seems penetrating, does it not also immediately arouse suspicion? After all, if the listener takes for granted that God simply CANNOT exist, then some trick must be involved if it ever starts to look, for even a moment, like He might.

No, I wasn't thinking about your arguments defending your beliefs, I was thinking about your approach to dealing with arguments against them. The most recent example I can think of was in our exchange about evolution. Your rejection of any aspects of the theory is legitimate; you are entitled to hold whatever opinion you choose, but your assertion that there are things that cast serious doubts on its veracity as a scientific theory -even if only regarding human evolution- is totally unjustified, and I am sure you know that. Evolution theory is not in trouble, and there are no honest grounds for saying it is. That, of course, does not restrict your freedom to pick as many holes in it as you like, but please don't imply that the scientific community at large are having doubts, because that is simply not true.

Do you really know that God does not exist, and know it with the same sort of certainty that you know that live ladies cannot be sawn in half?

No, of course I don't know for certain that God doesn't exist, although I do have something aproaching certainty where the biblical God is concerned. But my doubts about the existence of God are, as it happens, of the same nature as my doubts about live ladies being sawn in half with no ill effects. They are both totally outside of my experience of what is and what isn't likely.