Christianity

[Harbal]

It’s about as non sensical as accusing a zygote of being a sinner.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Harbal, here is the Short Reply. I had 234,531 words and I edited it down to this. Be thankful . . .

In much of what IC says, I get the implication that, even if God didn't, or doesn't exist, it would still be better that we believed he did exist. Are you also implying that?

In my view -- and I am not and do not take an atheist's position and indeed do not have that rejectionist's mind-set -- I think one has to understand first what people have meant by the term 'god'. More often than not 'god' is a way of expressing metaphysical views. And since man is a metaphysical animal one will not ever be rid of metaphysics. Immanuel says that in order to have morals we must have god. But I say that in order to have god we must have defined metaphysics.

Behind 'god' (now in quotes to indicate god-concept) stand metaphysical principles. Immanuel says these are *revealed*. I say they are intuited.

Our world is filled (as Immanuel notices) with *order*. Order necessitated *orderer*. What is an orderer to our world (the manifestation of existence) corresponds to metaphysical principles. But I do not propose giving it either a face or a voice. So if I define anything, any 'theology', it is fairly mystical and largely abstract.

Generally speaking, the mystics not only *say* god exists, but they live in some sort of communion, and so (to them of course) their knowledge is of a specific order. This is unintelligible to those who do not, or do not wish to, or perhaps are not internally geared, to have it.

Mostly, those are the 'Voices of Atheism' I encounter. Big Mike, Dubious, and so many others are of this category. Their denial or negation is simplistic and rather common. It is without any nuance. It is nuance-void. It is crude, direct and blunt.

I tend to place stock in the experiences of the mystics -- say some from the Eastern school (India, the orient). God is indefinable when expressed as Brahma and when pictured becomes Ishvara (something perceived at an intuitional, but visualized level). All of this is totally incomprehensible to some -- like Dubious, Big Mike and others. Their mission? To prove, with verbal proofs or disproofs, that no divinity can exist. They have it all worked out and neatly ordered. They offer reasons. Lacewing offers a sentimental platform for denouncing theology. It is mostly emotional and sentimental for her. My view? Everyone has a set of sound reasons for their determined efforts to (in this case) unseat Immanuel, the true-blue maniacal god-believer.

Personally, I think you are all wrong. Substantially so. I say this but no one listens or feels it relevant. The real miracle, and the only thing that can be focused on (if mystical relationship is even considered valuable and relevant) is the fact of existence. 'Sat' in Sanskrit.

So what I see -- let me take your case as an example -- is quite simply a man who has no interest at any level in such concerns. But as I have made efforts to point out this was definitely not the case for the ancient rishis. Men who were utterly mystified by the sphere of existence -- the manifest *world*. The dome of the sky enveloping this space where lives occur. What is all this? What is to be made of it? Every aspect of it -- say Dawn, or Birth, or Death, or Awakening -- all of these were metaphors that implied so many different things.

But as we have become dulled -- my assertion is that this is a cultural and civilizational process -- we lose the capacity to see and think in those terms. Our attention is captivated by the immediate, by the mutable, by getting and spending. What else is relevant?

So my position is strange. I can only see everything Immanuel presents as being *absolutely real* as merely metaphoric. Yet I do not dismiss metaphor as most would when it cannot be linked to something concrete and tangible. Instead, I think it better to *see behind the metaphorical curtain*.

The god defined by the Christian Gospels does not exist. The Story is a series or a complex of metaphors.

The Earth (the biological, material and mechanical world) is just exactly as we now (better) understand it to be. It is a terrible and terrifying place**. It is utterly bizarre and even unimaginable in its terrible strangeness. A system in which life feeds on life in merciless cycles. And here we are in that. We arise in that. We are as horrified by *reality* as the ancient Rishis were. And we have no suitable explanatory system!

Our lack of such leads us to various forms of nihilism. Now, you do not seem to *feel* any of that. But many others do. And they find themselves in an acute form of distress -- as the Knight in his (failed?) existential quest.

Does the Story end here?

It did not ever end for me in such a point. But the reason is because I have had access to subjective states that have shown me things quite difficult to put into words. So what I am saying here circles around to things I have said to Immanuel: understanding depends on gnosis (knowledge).

The Knight spent his life seeking 'truth' and came back disappointed and somewhat bitter. Yet he did find value though it was in a very different place than where he'd have imagined he'd find it.
___________________________

** “And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by “nothingness” as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be “empty” here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms striving toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self- creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my “beyond good and evil,” without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself— do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!”

[Harbal]

So what I see -- let me take your case as an example -- is quite simply a man who has no interest at any level in such concerns. But as I have made efforts to point out this was definitely not the case for the ancient rishis. Men who were utterly mystified by the sphere of existence -- the manifest *world*. The dome of the sky enveloping this space where lives occur. What is all this? What is to be made of it? Every aspect of it -- say Dawn, or Birth, or Death, or Awakening -- all of these were metaphors that implied so many different things.

There isn't a great deal to me, I grant you, but I hope there is more than you credit me with.

[Harbal]

** “And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by “nothingness” as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be “empty” here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms striving toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self- creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my “beyond good and evil,” without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself— do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!”

As you might suspect, this means nothing to me, but perhaps what you get from it, I get from the variety of patterns in butterfly wings. To me, nature is infinitely more awe inspiring than the content of other people's minds.

[BigMike]

Alexis Jacobi presents a philosophical view that is difficult to follow due to its convoluted style and lack of clear organization. Additionally, Jacobi seems to be attempting to sound intellectual by using complex language and abstract concepts without really making any substantive arguments.

Jacobi's main point seems to be that in order to understand the concept of God, one must first understand metaphysics. However, the way Jacobi presents this point is confusing and not well-supported. Jacobi claims that God is a way of expressing metaphysical views, and that man is a metaphysical animal, but doesn't provide any concrete examples to support these assertions.

Jacobi also seems to be critical of atheists, accusing them of having a "simplistic" and "nuance-void" view of the world. However, Jacobi doesn't offer any counterarguments to the atheist perspective, nor does he provide any evidence to support his own view. Instead, he seems content to make vague statements about the importance of mysticism and the need for a deeper understanding of existence.

Overall, Jacobi's post comes across as pretentious and unfocused. While it's possible that he has some interesting ideas to share, he does a poor job of presenting them in a clear and compelling way.

[Harbal]

Alexis Jacobi presents a philosophical view that is difficult to follow due to its convoluted style and lack of clear organization. Additionally, Jacobi seems to be attempting to sound intellectual by using complex language and abstract concepts without really making any substantive arguments.

Jacobi's main point seems to be that in order to understand the concept of God, one must first understand metaphysics. However, the way Jacobi presents this point is confusing and not well-supported. Jacobi claims that God is a way of expressing metaphysical views, and that man is a metaphysical animal, but doesn't provide any concrete examples to support these assertions.

Jacobi also seems to be critical of atheists, accusing them of having a "simplistic" and "nuance-void" view of the world. However, Jacobi doesn't offer any counterarguments to the atheist perspective, nor does he provide any evidence to support his own view. Instead, he seems content to make vague statements about the importance of mysticism and the need for a deeper understanding of existence.

Overall, Jacobi's post comes across as pretentious and unfocused. While it's possible that he has some interesting ideas to share, he does a poor job of presenting them in a clear and compelling way.

I'm glad about that. I assumed I didn't understand most of it because I'm not well enough read.

[attofishpi]

The god defined by the Christian Gospels does not exist. The Story is a series or a complex of metaphors.

That was a good read, but you got that bit wrong..(and it is an important bit-logic).

Care to provide a Gospel inspired definition of God?

[BigMike]

___________________________

** “And do you know what “the world” is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror? This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by “nothingness” as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be “empty” here or there, but rather as force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there; a sea of forces flowing and rushing together, eternally changing, eternally flooding back, with tremendous years of recurrence, with an ebb and a flood of its forms; out of the simplest forms striving toward the most complex, out of the stillest, most rigid, coldest forms striving toward the hottest, most turbulent, most self-contradictory, and then again returning home to the simple out of this abundance, out of the play of contradictions back to the joy of concord, still affirming itself in this uniformity of its courses and its years, blessing itself as that which must return eternally, as a becoming that knows no satiety, no disgust, no weariness: this, my Dionysian world of the eternally self- creating, the eternally self-destroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my “beyond good and evil,” without goal, unless the joy of the circle is itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself— do you want a name for this world? A solution for all of its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, most midnightly men?— This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And you yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!”

Oh boy, Nietzsche really went all out with that one, huh? I mean, what's with all the "forces" and "waves of forces" nonsense? Is he trying to write a physics textbook or something? And don't even get me started on his mirror. Who does he think he is, Snow White? "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the most powerful of them all?" Give me a break.

And what's up with this "will to power" business? Sounds like the title of a bad motivational book. "Unlock your inner power with Nietzsche's revolutionary new philosophy!" Yeah, right. I'd rather stick to eating pizza and binge-watching Netflix, thanks.

But hey, at least he's got a sense of humor, right? I mean, he's basically saying that we're all just a bunch of power-hungry maniacs. Thanks for the uplifting message, Nietzsche. I'll be sure to keep that in mind next time I'm feeling down.

[Immanuel Can]

I consider the likelihood of his existence to be so small as to make it negligible.

On what basis? It can't be merely because it exceeds your personal experience...on that basis, you probably can't believe in Oslo, birthing pangs or space travel either.

I have witnessed "birthing pangs", and there is acceptable, documented evidence of Oslo and space travel, but if I did have a nagging scepticism, and sufficient curiosity, it would be possible to verify the existence of those things via direct research.

But you don't know. You assume (probably rightly) that you've seen birthing pangs, but don't know what they feel like. You only imagine them. You haven't been to Oslo, so it might possibly be a deception...you don't know. And you've never space-travelled, but speculate that you could. And the world is full of evidence for God, in creation, in morals, in mathematics, in history, and in your own existence (See Romans 1, for example), and you say you lack evidence for that, but that these other things are unproblematic...?

These things are sometimes more a matter of willingness to try than of lack of evidence.

Also, even if I were to concede the tiniest possibility of God's existence, it would certainly not be the God decribed in a collection of writings produced by primitive, Middle Eastern desert dwellers, somewhere back in the mists of time.

Why not? Would it be even remotely surprising IF there was a God, that He had been speaking for a long time, throughout human history?

Seriously?

Of course.

Is it more plausible to suppose some brand new, never-before-seen "revelation" would be authentic, or one that had pervaded recorded history?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't argue that the three things you listed are part of the necessary background for morals. I simply point out that they're nowhere near enough. And that's quite obvious...unless, of course, you have no problem with such things as totalitarian dictators.

So what are the conclusions to be drawn if we do have a problem with such things as totalitarian dictators?

That if you think your antipathy to them is founded in anything, it's got to be much more than what DAM has suggested.

[Immanuel Can]

Mathew doesn’t agree with you IC

What's your understanding of that incident, DAM? Is it that Christ is saying, "All children are without sin"?

My understanding is zero.

Apparently.

[Harbal]

And the world is full of evidence for God, in creation, in morals, in mathematics, in history, and in your own existence

None of these things suggest God to me, and surely you wouldn't expect me to form my world view on your interpretation in preference to my own.

Is it more plausible to suppose some brand new, never-before-seen "revelation" would be authentic, or one that had pervaded recorded history?

Again we perceive different things; you see truth, but I see uneducated make-believe.

[Harbal]

That if you think your antipathy to them is founded in anything, it's got to be much more than what DAM has suggested.

I'm surprised that you are prepared to accept that I, as an atheist, might be capable of feeling antipathy towards totalitarian dictators.

Why aren't you insisting that I have no warrant to do so?

[Immanuel Can]

That if you think your antipathy to them is founded in anything, it's got to be much more than what DAM has suggested.

I'm surprised that you are prepared to accept that I, as an atheist, might be capable of feeling antipathy towards totalitarian dictators.

I'll say again (and it now seems for the tenth time or so) I indict Atheism. Some Atheists don't live out the logical amorality entailed by their Atheism, and for that, I'm immensely glad. And maybe you're one of those.

But you'll find there's nothing in Atheism that gives you reason to have an antipathy to dictators. It's solely concerned with eliminating God, not with your moral condition, good or bad.

Why aren't you insisting that I have no warrant to do so?

You don't. Not if you're an Atheist. But maybe you're better, as a person, than your creed is. An Atheist pretty much has to be, because Atheism offers nothing upon which to base any moral imperative at all, and all we find we can't live without some kind of moral imperatives.

[BigMike]

I'll say again (and it now seems for the tenth time or so) I indict Atheism. Some Atheists don't live out the logical amorality entailed by their Atheism, and for that, I'm immensely glad. And maybe you're one of those.

But you'll find there's nothing in Atheism that gives you reason to have an antipathy to dictators. It's solely concerned with eliminating God, not with your moral condition, good or bad.

First of all, I think it's important to acknowledge that there are a lot of different definitions of atheism out there, and not all atheists would necessarily agree with the definition that Immanuel Can seems to be working with. However, for the sake of argument, let's take his definition of atheism as the rejection of belief in God.

With that in mind, I think there are a few problematic aspects to Can's statement. For one thing, it seems to conflate atheism with moral relativism or amorality, when in fact those are separate philosophical positions. While it's true that some atheists may hold to a relativistic or nihilistic view of morality, there are also many atheists who believe in objective moral standards, even if they don't ground those standards in a divine authority.

Moreover, it's not clear why Can believes that atheism necessarily leads to antipathy towards dictators or any other particular moral stance. It's entirely possible for an atheist to oppose dictatorship on moral or political grounds, just as it's possible for a religious person to support dictatorship on those same grounds.

Finally, I think Can's statement ignores the fact that many atheists do indeed care about their moral condition and strive to live ethical lives. While they may not look to God as the source of moral guidance, they can still find meaning and purpose in humanistic values and principles.

Overall, I think Can's statement is problematic because it makes overly simplistic assumptions about atheism and morality, and seems to suggest that rejecting belief in God necessarily leads to moral nihilism or amorality.