Am I ever an atheist?

[seebs]

So. Many people have occasionally experienced what is called the "long dark night of the soul". It happens occasionally to me. Strictly speaking, I've approximately diagnosed it as mild clinical depression as a result of chronic situational depression... Which means it'll probably come and go for most of my life.

When I am depressed, I don't particularly believe in God. I also don't particularly see marriage as rewarding or fulfilling, or find joy in wondering whether cats think, and if so, what they think. In short, the things that are normally real and important to me stop seeming that way; I have a false emotional response which causes me to reinterpret things.

Being a non-nihlist, I categorize this response as erroneous.

But nonetheless, at that point, I don't particularly "believe in God"; I don't see any reason to believe in such a thing, because I'm quite happy to dismiss fairly large chunks of my experience as inconsistent with the universe as I then understand it.

So. Imagine that, one night, while very depressed, I am browsing the internet, and I stumble across a page which says that I am invited to register on a given forum if, and only if, I am a non-theist.

Would it be honest of me to sign up given that, at that moment, I could reasonably be called a non-theist?

Does it matter whether, even in that depressed state, I believe that I should act according to the beliefs I have which derive from theism, not because I feel them particularly convincing, but because experience has taught me that I will later feel better if I have continued to act that way?

[Dingfod]

Boy don't I know about those depressed states. However, I never have moments when I think I am a believer. There are moments when I think I might like to join a church just for the social aspect, but then I sober up. Okay, just kidding about that last bit.

I'm not sure if you could or would be considered an atheist just for having moments of doubt, or if a non-theist would really be considered an atheist, certainly not the so-called strong atheist. Hell, I'm not sure I'm even an atheist. Sure, I don't believe in the supernatural, but I can't prove it doesn't exist either.

[Gurdur]

....Would it be honest of me to sign up given that, at that moment, I could reasonably be called a non-theist?
It would be honest for you to sign up at that time, but it would also then be honest for you to immediatly resign the moment you stopped feeling that.
So there we have the question of practicalities: were those changes of yours to take place every 10 minutes, it would seem only fair to you and the poor admin of the site not to actually join, quit, re-join, re-quit, re-join, re-quit.

Just one of those practicalities of life.

Does it matter whether, even in that depressed state, I believe that I should act according to the beliefs I have which derive from theism,

Depends which specific beliefs you're talking about.

You know as well as I do that some beliefs are mor important than others in terms of flags.

[Ronin]

Hey, I had a similar thought a few months back when my sergeant told me that he considered me (a Humanist with no belief in Gods) more Christian than the Christians he knew at his church.

I thanked him because that statement had all the earmarks of a compliment.

Later, while surfing CF, I suddenly considered that conversation...and wondered if I could ethically log into the forum as a Christian since being "Christian" is not definable and may just simply be behaving "right" and caring for others.

What are we to others, afterall...but what they perceive we are by our words and deeds?

Interesting.

[ApostateAbe]

I am sure it is OK to register with HH when you are having those moments and post on HH only when you are having those moments. Just put an explanation in your signature.

[TomJoe]

Later, while surfing CF, I suddenly considered that conversation...and wondered if I could ethically log into the forum as a Christian since being "Christian" is not definable and may just simply be behaving "right" and caring for others.


CF has defined the word "Christian" as those assenting to the Nicene Creed. That's what Rule 6 is all about. If there is anything in the Nicene Creed which you reject, for CF's purposes, you're not Christian.

In this instance, deeds has nothing to do with it.

[Ms.Babylon]

Later, while surfing CF, I suddenly considered that conversation...and wondered if I could ethically log into the forum as a Christian since being "Christian" is not definable and may just simply be behaving "right" and caring for others.


CF has defined the word "Christian" as those assenting to the Nicene Creed. That's what Rule 6 is all about. If there is anything in the Nicene Creed which you reject, for CF's purposes, you're not Christian.

In this instance, deeds has nothing to do with it.

'for CF purposes' being the operative words.

I do wish CF would change their name to 'NiceneChristians.com. There would be a lot less hurt feelings.

[TomJoe]

'for CF purposes' being the operative words.

Of course those are the operative words, and that is why I used them. CF is concerned about how CF is run, not about how different denominations believe and teach.

I do wish CF would change their name to 'NiceneChristians.com. There would be a lot less hurt feelings.

Aside from your occassional Mormon or Jehovah's Witness being ticked off at CF for not considering them Christian, I don't think there is a "lot of hurt feelings" over at CF because of this issue.

Not trying to sound callous but... the WWW is a pretty large place... CF shouldn't be expected to bend over backwards for every person who surfs the internet.

[viscousmemories]

So. Imagine that, one night, while very depressed, I am browsing the internet, and I stumble across a page which says that I am invited to register on a given forum if, and only if, I am a non-theist.

Would it be honest of me to sign up given that, at that moment, I could reasonably be called a non-theist?
I think it would depend on the actual wording of the membership policy. Heathen Hangout, for example, specifies that membership is for non-theists only. Hence I agree with Gurdur that it would be honest of you to join when you were feeling atheistic, but dishonest for you to maintain your membership when you started believing in God again.

I think a much more important question is whether it would be a good idea for you -- in a depressed state -- to participate in a forum populated with people who prefer not to have you there regardless of your mood.

[Dragar]

CF has defined the word "Christian" as those assenting to the Nicene Creed. That's what Rule 6 is all about. If there is anything in the Nicene Creed which you reject, for CF's purposes, you're not Christian.

I often wonder just how...literally you have to take that creed. I also sometimes wonder how much wiggle room they would allow.

[Sweetie]

If I were to be completely honest, from my perspective, I would personally say that you seebs, agree with our definition of "Christian," that it is rational as it stands, and that's it's defensible. I think your own definition is way too arbitrary and for all practical purposes, useless, except of course, for you purposes practically.

I would personally say that refusing to use standard and useful definitions of "Christian" is handy, it's effective as an evangelization tool because you might see that it causes hurt to some not to be considered in the "in" crowd and therefore it is useful that in order to evangelize/convince/persuade, you begin from a position of not immediately pushing that person away from a position of not being in the "in" crowd yourself, though I think you are for all intents and purposes, you just refuse to name and claim it and take things to it's rational ends. I agree, that's effective, it's handy and useful but in the end do I really believe you don't agree with us? No, not at all. Like I said, that's my honest opinion and I could be wrong.

Second thing brought up in this thread, how much stock should we put in boys' club rules?

Thirdly, are Deists theists? I think there is a lack of even-handedness as far as including or excluding Deists in certain areas.

Fourthly, really, if you are a Jew, a Muslim or a Christian you're not welcome? Put in those terms, that's just nasty.

[Ms.Babylon]

CF has defined the word "Christian" as those assenting to the Nicene Creed. That's what Rule 6 is all about. If there is anything in the Nicene Creed which you reject, for CF's purposes, you're not Christian.

I often wonder just how...literally you have to take that creed. I also sometimes wonder how much wiggle room they would allow.

It's hard to tell sometimes. When I first noticed some Calvinists on CF a few years back, with their, "God predestines souls for eternal torment!" and "God hates people!" I was sure they were some kind of wacky cult.
Not according to CF though, since there are now more than a few Calvinists on staff.

Those guys make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

[Dragar]

It's hard to tell sometimes. When I first noticed some Calvinists on CF a few years back, with their, "God predestines souls for eternal torment!" and "God hates people!" I was sure they were some kind of wacky cult.
Not according to CF though, since there are now more than a few Calvinists on staff.

Those guys make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

You're only saying that because you think a god that creates people predestined for eternal torment is a bad thing.

They sadden me, actually, because it shows just what extremes humans can go to when percieving things as desirable.

[JoeP]

Not trying to sound callous but... the WWW is a pretty large place... CF shouldn't be expected to bend over backwards for every person who surfs the internet.
And some of those people are only interested if you are literally bending over backwards.

[seebs]

Well, the thing is, HH says that you have to be a non-theist to register. I never saw anything saying you had to be a non-theist to participate! :P

(More realistically, if I did sign up, I wouldn't probably unregister the rest of the time, but I would probably refuse to use my account unless I was an atheist at the time.)

[seebs]

And some of those people are only interested if you are literally bending over backwards.

Or forwards.

[viscousmemories]

Well, the thing is, HH says that you have to be a non-theist to register. I never saw anything saying you had to be a non-theist to participate! :P

(More realistically, if I did sign up, I wouldn't probably unregister the rest of the time, but I would probably refuse to use my account unless I was an atheist at the time.)
I thought that too, but actually the front page says:

"The sole requirement for membership in Heathen Hangout is absence of belief in God..."

So when you're a theist you're not eligible for membership, and thus you obviously can't participate. :P

[Ms.Babylon]

Why did the site change their name? Godless Heathens had a ring to it.

[viscousmemories]

Why did the site change their name? Godless Heathens had a ring to it.
That name was the intellectual property of the previous administrator, who retained it when she stepped down from that position. I proposed the name Heathen Hangout kind of on a lark, truth be told, since the site had become primarily a chat room environment instead of a more serious discussion forum. And so it became.

[Gurdur]

Godless Heathens had a ring to it.
We got rid of the Ring at Mount Doom ?

[Gurdur]

....Second thing brought up in this thread, how much stock should we put in boys' club rules?
HH isn't a boys' club. Mixed.
Thirdly, are Deists theists?
IMHO; nope, but bloody few genuine deists actually exist, and they seem extremely thin on the ground in the net.
Fourthly, really, if you are a Jew, a Muslim or a Christian you're not welcome? Put in those terms, that's just nasty.
Put in those terms, it is nasty ---- but those terms just aren't too correct, and were used rhetorically to give the wrong impression,
For a start, I pointed out waaaaaaay earlier that Jewish does not equal religious; cultural Jews, agnostic Jews, all non-theist Jews are welcome.
BTW, a large part of Judaism itself today cannot be meaningfully described as theist.

Next, no theist Jews, Moslems, Christians, is all part of saying no theists.
It's only a social club, with no pretensions to being a power centre. Just as a Christian social club can exist on the net, so can a non-theist one.

[viscousmemories]

Put in those terms, it is nasty ---- but those terms just aren't too correct, and were used rhetorically to give the wrong impression,
I used the terms, and I'll thank you not to presume to speak for my intent since you do a bad job of guessing at it. As it is you are wrong. The no-theist rule that Brimshack wrote -- as presented on the front page of your site -- is the direct result of an HH thread wherein it became obvious that the primary concern was the exclusion of believers in the Abrahamic God; eg. Christians, Jews and Muslims.

[Zoot]

*ignores misuse of term "dark night of the soul"*

When I am depressed, I don't particularly believe in God. I also don't particularly see marriage as rewarding or fulfilling, or find joy in wondering whether cats think, and if so, what they think. In short, the things that are normally real and important to me stop seeming that way; I have a false emotional response which causes me to reinterpret things.

I'd replace "false" with "different".


Being a non-nihlist, I categorize this response as erroneous.

So... you're saying that a nihilist is anyone who doesn't think there's such a thing as a correct emotional response?


But nonetheless, at that point, I don't particularly "believe in God"; I don't see any reason to believe in such a thing, because I'm quite happy to dismiss fairly large chunks of my experience as inconsistent with the universe as I then understand it.

So. Imagine that, one night, while very depressed, I am browsing the internet, and I stumble across a page which says that I am invited to register on a given forum if, and only if, I am a non-theist.

Would it be honest of me to sign up given that, at that moment, I could reasonably be called a non-theist?

Does it matter whether, even in that depressed state, I believe that I should act according to the beliefs I have which derive from theism, not because I feel them particularly convincing, but because experience has taught me that I will later feel better if I have continued to act that way?

Belief is an experience. It's something that happens to you. If at that point you are not experiencing belief-in-God, then it's honest to say that you don't. People think of belief like a kind of glowing existing light inside people that grows or fades, and so they think that discrete transitions from total belief to total unbelief are not possible.

I'm still fascinated by the cognitive dissonance required to base life on a belief in a God so irrelevant that one can question whether or not it exists. When I believe someone exists, and then I question that belief, they look me in the eye and tell me to shut up. Not in a "I get a feeling that they're kind of spiritually looking me in the eye and sort of telling my soul to shut up" way. I mean, they'll slap me.

[Gurdur]

...and I'll thank you not to presume to speak for my intent
*guffaw*
You mean you are the only one allowed to judge intent ? :P
As with your silly little accusation last night that I'm only here to "attack" you ?
Put a sock in it; I call the shots as I see them.
But I do see that you've inexlicably changed your mind, and now you --- despite your word --- are talking to me.

Well ! then you have a lot of things to answer ! :yup:
since you do a bad job of guessing at it.
Dubious.
As it is you are wrong. The no-theist rule that Brimshack wrote -- as presented on the front page of your site -- is the direct result of an HH thread wherein it became obvious that the primary concern was the exclusion of believers in the Abrahamic God; eg. Christians, Jews and Muslims.
As it is, you get it somewhat wrong again.

The present rule on the home page is:
he sole requirement for membership in Heathen Hangout is absence of belief in God, which we define as an interventionist deity external to the material world, in line with conventional western Theism. If you believe in the God of Abraham or any other transcendant deity who intervenes in humankind's daily affairs, then please do not attempt to join.


Those with non-conventional religious beliefs such as Deism, Pantheism, or any other beliefs excluding an interventionist deity external to this world may join, but any attempt to promote your beliefs will not be tolerated. Please respect the fact that this site is run by godless heathens for the benefit of godless heathens.

The "no Jews, Moslems or Christians" is only your interpretation, and BTW, monotheism is hardly limited to those 3, and Jews are not at all necessarily theist, as I keep on pointing out.
Care to try again ? :D

[viscousmemories]

...and I'll thank you not to presume to speak for my intent
*guffaw*
You mean you are the only one allowed to judge intent ? :P
As with your silly little accusation last night that I'm only here to "attack" you ?
Put a sock in it; I call the shots as I see them.
But I do see that you've inexlicably changed your mind, and now you --- despite your word --- are talking to me.
Yes, this is exactly the type of condescending bullshit I said I won't tolerate.

Goodbye, Gurdur.

[TomJoe]

If you believe in the God of Abraham or any other transcendant deity who intervenes in humankind's daily affairs, then please do not attempt to join.

Since I do not believe "in a transcendant deity who intervenes in humankind's daily affairs" (I do not believe that God micromanages)... can I join?

[Gurdur]

Yes, this is exactly the type of condescending bullshit I said I won't tolerate.
You mean like:
1) you made a false accusation and got called out on it? :yup:

2) you claimed not to be speaking to me anymore, but then suddenly you are speaking to me again ? :wink:

3) You don't like others judging your intent, but you feel free to make silly accusations about others' intent ?
Wouldn't that be hypocrisy ? :P
Goodbye, Gurdur.
Again ? :popcorn:
Let's see just how many times you go through that particular little speech.

[seebs]

*ignores misuse of term "dark night of the soul"*

Er, you should probably correct me, if I'm using it wrong.

I'd replace "false" with "different".

I wouldn't.

Being a non-nihlist, I categorize this response as erroneous.

So... you're saying that a nihilist is anyone who doesn't think there's such a thing as a correct emotional response?

No. I'm saying that I've philosophically rejected that worldview, so I categorize the emotional response that fits it as wrong, according to my philosophy.

Say I'm mad at someone, but then I realize that being angry with them is somehow inconsistent with my philosophical position on some related issue; I will then categorize the response as erroneous. I mean, I'm still having it... But I won't act on it.

Belief is an experience. It's something that happens to you. If at that point you are not experiencing belief-in-God, then it's honest to say that you don't. People think of belief like a kind of glowing existing light inside people that grows or fades, and so they think that discrete transitions from total belief to total unbelief are not possible.

That's pretty much my take on it.

I'm still fascinated by the cognitive dissonance required to base life on a belief in a God so irrelevant that one can question whether or not it exists. When I believe someone exists, and then I question that belief, they look me in the eye and tell me to shut up. Not in a "I get a feeling that they're kind of spiritually looking me in the eye and sort of telling my soul to shut up" way. I mean, they'll slap me.

Heh.

But I guess... It's not just God that I believe in, but all sorts of other things, like morals, and a vague sense that I oughta be nice to people.

In short... Living this way seems to make me depressed less often than living other ways.

[Gurdur]

Since I do not believe "in a transcendant deity who intervenes in humankind's daily affairs" (I do not believe that God micromanages)... can I join?
If you're asking seriously, let's talk it out here.
It's my understanding, though I easily could be wrong,. that youre a mod over at CF ? CF has a rule regarding the Nicene Creed or some such for mods ?
Those creeds actually very heavily imply such a transcendent deity who interevenes, at the very least through Salvation / Redemption ?

The micromanaging need not be of the every-single-moment-is-controlled type of PETAL Calvinism or should-be-controlled type of Opus Dei; the notion of a transcendent single deity who saves some (and that salvation supposedly has an effect in their daily lives) but does not save others certainly is a form of "micromanagement", yes ?

So let's discuss it out fully.

[Zoot]

Er, you should probably correct me, if I'm using it wrong.

Don't mind me, I'm a pedant who grew up reading John of the Cross. Not a good combination.


No. I'm saying that I've philosophically rejected that worldview, so I categorize the emotional response that fits it as wrong, according to my philosophy.

Your philosophy has correct emotional responses?!


Say I'm mad at someone, but then I realize that being angry with them is somehow inconsistent with my philosophical position on some related issue; I will then categorize the response as erroneous. I mean, I'm still having it... But I won't act on it.

So, while experiencing depression, you feel nothing when you should feel happy?


Heh.

But I guess... It's not just God that I believe in, but all sorts of other things, like morals, and a vague sense that I oughta be nice to people.

Exactly. As with many people, it's not so much God you believe in, as his shadows - absolute morality, meaning of life, absolute truth, etc. I think deists often do the same.


In short... Living this way seems to make me depressed less often than living other ways.

I can't fault that.

[TomJoe]

Don't mind me, I'm a pedant who grew up reading John of the Cross. Not a good combination.


Since Zoot plans on leaving you hanging Seebs... :P

St. John of the Cross, a Catholic mystic, wrote a treatise entitled Ascent of Mount Carmel. Each night is a purgation, whereby the soul is either preparing itself or being prepared for reception of the Divine. The dark night, is where God performs the purgation Himself.

That's it in a very terrible nutshell I imagine.

[Zoot]

Yeah, what I was going to say was that the dark night of the soul occurs after the soul's worldly desires have been completely mortified and one has spent some time experiencing worldly-desireless bliss, which God then cuts off.

[Dragar]

...and one has spent some time experiencing worldly-desireless bliss...

Zoot, this concept reminds me of something from another religion...

[Zoot]

Yeah, the parallels between mysticisms of various religions is well noted. You can find them all at...

Oh fuck. Digiserve/mystic is gone. I'd love to hear the story behind that...

Um.

I can't think of anything that was even remotely as good as that site. Besides, like, my bookshelf.

But yes, the parallels are a cause for frequent erection in the syncretists of the world.

[TomJoe]

If you're asking seriously, let's talk it out here.


Actually, I was being facetious, my apologies.

It's my understanding, though I easily could be wrong,. that youre a mod over at CF ? CF has a rule regarding the Nicene Creed or some such for mods ?

Yes, and yes.

Those creeds actually very heavily imply such a transcendent deity who interevenes, at the very least through Salvation / Redemption ?

I wouldn't say that the Nicene Creed implies an intervening deity. Mainly the Nicene Creed establishes the Triune Nature of God (it's primary goal when being written), the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ.

It does say that we, as believers, believe we are forgiven our sins through baptism, we believe Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead, and that we believe in a world to come.

However, it's never stated when we believe such will occur. For all we know, baptism is simply a mark which, after all is said and done, God will see and say "Ok, cool... move along."

The micromanaging need not be of the every-single-moment-is-controlled type of PETAL Calvinism or should-be-controlled type of Opus Dei; the notion of a transcendent single deity who saves some (and that salvation supposedly has an effect in their daily lives) but does not save others certainly is a form of "micromanagement", yes ?


I guess the question that this comes down to, is what was the point in the mentioning of "daily affairs"? Couldn't you have simply left that entire portion out? If I believe that my baptism saves me, but does so because it's a mark on me that makes me recognizable to God only after my death... that's in keeping with the Nicene Creed, but denies any sort of "daily involvement", doesn't it?

[Dragar]

But yes, the parallels are a cause for frequent erection in the syncretists of the world.

Or it could just be a human brain is pretty darned similar to another human brain. Wish I knew what the heck that sort of experience is a result of, though. If it's not merely crossed wires.

Anyway, I'm de-railing. Back to seebs and his atheist shadow.

[TomJoe]

Or it could just be a human brain is pretty darned similar to another human brain. Wish I knew what the heck that sort of experience is a result of, though. If it's not merely crossed wires.


Or a subconscious tug by the divine? :P

[Zoot]

Or it could just be a human brain is pretty darned similar to another human brain. Wish I knew what the heck that sort of experience is a result of, though. If it's not merely crossed wires.

Check out Schopenhauer sometime. He rules the school.

[Dragar]

Or a subconscious tug by the divine?

Maybe, but it's a pretty crummy deity if the bets 'tug' he can manage sends people all over the place, a good number not even to a deity. Besides, my 'I don't knows' I make sure I don't confuse with 'God is here'.

Check out Schopenhauer sometime. He rules the school.

I'll go rummage through the university library tomorrow.

[viscousmemories]

He was a bit (well okay a massive bit) of a misogynist, though.

[Dragar]

He was a bit (well okay a massive bit) of a misogynist, though.

I read he lived his life under the horrible cloud of depression.

[TomJoe]

Or a subconscious tug by the divine?

Maybe, but it's a pretty crummy deity if the bets 'tug' he can manage sends people all over the place, a good number not even to a deity. Besides, my 'I don't knows' I make sure I don't confuse with 'God is here'.


I've got to make sure that I make the disclaimer that whenever I post a :P I'm being facetious. As well as making sure that the :P is in all my facetious comments.

[Ms.Babylon]

Maybe, but it's a pretty crummy deity if the bets 'tug' he can manage sends people all over the place, a good number not even to a deity.



Maybe the tug isn't meant to send you to a specific deity.

[TomJoe]

He was a bit (well okay a massive bit) of a misogynist, though.

I read he lived his life under the horrible cloud of depression.

I've read that he was clearly a pessimist, and it basically pervaded every aspect of his life. It got to the point where his own mother told him to never come around anymore because he depressed the heck out of all her guests... and from that point forward, he never saw her again.

Perhaps Prozac may have done him good.

[viscousmemories]

I read he lived his life under the horrible cloud of depression.
Makes sense. Women are happy inducing. :)

[TomJoe]

Makes sense. Women are happy inducing. :)
Which means lesbianism is truly the bane of man. It should be outlawed! :P

[Dragar]

I've got to make sure that I make the disclaimer that whenever I post a :P I'm being facetious. As well as making sure that the :P is in all my facetious comments.

Oh, okay. I'll remember that in future. My mistkale. :)

I've read that he was clearly a pessimist, and it basically pervaded every aspect of his life. It got to the point where his own mother told him to never come around anymore because he depressed the heck out of all her guests.

Sounds like a cheerful sort of guy. I bet he doodled flowers in the margins of his essays.

Perhaps Prozac may have done him good.

Works for my parents and the cat. :)

Maybe the tug isn't meant to send you to a specific deity.

Maybe it has nothing to do with a deity? Maybe it's not a tug?

[Gurdur]

I wouldn't say that the Nicene Creed implies an intervening deity. Mainly the Nicene Creed establishes the Triune Nature of God (it's primary goal when being written), the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection of Christ.
The virgin birth and the resurrection seem micro-managing par excellence.

Can't see why you think you don't believe in a micro-managing god,
If I believe that my baptism saves me, but does so because it's a mark on me that makes me recognizable to God only after my death... that's in keeping with the Nicene Creed, but denies any sort of "daily involvement", doesn't it?
You're over-defining daily involvement. Any kind of individual salvation necessarily must have effect on daily life.

[TomJoe]

The virgin birth and the resurrection seem micro-managing par excellence.


Two instances in the billions of years the earth has been around doesn't appear to be micro-management to me.

You're over-defining daily involvement.

Daily means occuring, active or acted upon every day. I don't think God acts that way. I think free-will precludes Him from acting that way actually.

But my question is... what is the point of even putting that portion there on the front-page anyways?

[Zoot]

He was a bit (well okay a massive bit) of a misogynist, though.

Well, yes. He was a philosopher.

He was very much a pessimist. He figured that raw desire/will is the underlying reality, and everything else is a function of will, and that the very nature of will makes suffering inevitable - one is either frustrated by denied desire, or bored by fulfilled desire. He influenced Nietzsche and Freud. He was the first Western philosopher to suggest that intellect is a function of the will, rather than the other way around. Keep in mind, this is before "subconscious" was an established notion at all.

[Petra]

Hmmm, I thought it was The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul? :chin:

[Ms.Babylon]

Maybe it has nothing to do with a deity? Maybe it's not a tug?

Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with a deity. But what did Ghandi and Jesus feel? We can be more than we are.
Or the words of Gibran, I can see something more in his writings. Something I want and even occasionally feel.

[Dragar]

Maybe it doesn't have anything to do with a deity. But what did Ghandi and Jesus feel? We can be more than we are.
Or the words of Gibran, I can see something more in his writings. Something I want and even occasionally feel.

I don't know.

[godfry n. glad]

The virgin birth and the resurrection seem micro-managing par excellence.


Two instances in the billions of years the earth has been around doesn't appear to be micro-management to me.

Then you'll need to explain why so many christians spend so much time in prayer. That seems like a less than daily attempt on the part of individual christians to involve their god in their lives.

Am I missing something? If the god does not micro-manage, then what's the purpose of daily prayer?

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Well, yes. He was a philosopher.

He was very much a pessimist. He figured that raw desire/will is the underlying reality, and everything else is a function of will, and that the very nature of will makes suffering inevitable - one is either frustrated by denied desire, or bored by fulfilled desire. He influenced Nietzsche and Freud. He was the first Western philosopher to suggest that intellect is a function of the will, rather than the other way around. Keep in mind, this is before "subconscious" was an established notion at all.
Okaaaay. But I'm not seeing why "therefore he hated women" results from that.

[viscousmemories]

Am I missing something? If the god does not micro-manage, then what's the purpose of daily prayer?
As I understand it daily prayer is to give praise to God. I don't see how that amounts to God intervening on Earth really.

ETA: Actually I guess I can see calling that micro-management in the sense of God expecting something like a status report from you every day. Hmm. Better leave the answer to TomJoe. :)

[Zoot]

Okaaaay. But I'm not seeing why "therefore he hated women" results from that.

That wasn't why he hated women. He either hated women because he was a philosopher, or he became a philosopher because he hated women. That's how it goes. All philosophers are misogynists.

[viscousmemories]

That wasn't why he hated women. He either hated women because he was a philosopher, or he became a philosopher because he hated women. That's how it goes. All philosophers are misogynists.
Ah, okay. :chuckle:

Y'know now that you mention it... I have noticed that trend. I wonder if that's why I'm not much of a philosopher.

[godfry n. glad]

That wasn't why he hated women. He either hated women because he was a philosopher, or he became a philosopher because he hated women. That's how it goes. All philosophers are misogynists.
Ah, okay. :chuckle:

Y'know now that you mention it... I have noticed that trend. I wonder if that's why I'm not much of a philosopher.

Yeah...I know what you mean there, vm.

I think this philosopher's attitude goes back to the reputed Socrates, who is said to have suggested that a man who marries and loves his wife is lucky indeed, but a man who has an unhappy marriage becomes a philosopher.

(My paraphrase is probably mangled, but there'll be pedant along at any moment to correct me.)

godfry

(...so that makes philosophy a byproduct of sexual frustration? Is that it?)

[viscousmemories]

Well as you predicted, a pedant is here.





What, you were expecting a knowledgeable pedant? :)

[godfry n. glad]

Well as you predicted, a pedant is here.

Cheeez...that's not hard. This board is packed with 'em. You can't turn around without bumping into one.

What, you were expecting a knowledgeable pedant? :)

Nah, "Cliffy Notes" will do. "It's a little known fact that...."

godfry

[Gurdur]

Daily means occuring, active or acted upon every day.
Actually, no, it doesn't in this context; it can mean direct or indirect intervention some days and not others.

Point is, that interventions happen in life. And you didn't reply to my point about redemption having an effect upon the peron in life ?

But my question is... what is the point of even putting that portion there on the front-page anyways?
To make positions clear ?

[godfry n. glad]

...me sniffs a whiff of Ferdinand, King of Navarre, and his compatriots in the pursuit of philosophy.

Heh. Love's labours lost, indeed.

[Ronin]

CF has defined the word "Christian" as those assenting to the Nicene Creed. That's what Rule 6 is all about. If there is anything in the Nicene Creed which you reject, for CF's purposes, you're not Christian.

In this instance, deeds has nothing to do with it.

Which does puzzle me...as the "Nicene Creed" (or assenting thereto) does not appear in a) Jesus words b) the Bible.

Matthew 25: 34-46, on the other hand does.

How is this reconciled among those who claim title to being "Christian"?

[TomJoe]

Then you'll need to explain why so many christians spend so much time in prayer. That seems like a less than daily attempt on the part of individual christians to involve their god in their lives.


There are several forms of prayer. Praise, Petition, and Intercessory for example. If I wake up in the morning and thank God for another day that I am alive, that doesn't necessarily mean that He did anything to ensure that I woke up that morning.

Am I missing something? If the god does not micro-manage, then what's the purpose of daily prayer?

Going back about a generation, the Baltimore Catechism says that our (us, the world) purpose is to worship Him. Worshipping him doesn't really have to involve any effort on His part, does it?

[TomJoe]

Actually, no, it doesn't in this context; it can mean direct or indirect intervention some days and not others.

Well then, take it up with Merriam and Webster, because they disagree with you. If someone tells you they'll do something daily, I imagine you'd expect them to do it every day... not some days and not others. Especially if you're paying them.

Point is, that interventions happen in life. And you didn't reply to my point about redemption having an effect upon the peron in life ?

So if I think that God steps in immediately after our death, and says "Here is how it's going to play out. Do you believe in Me now or not? Heaven or Hell, your choice. If assent, you'll be redeemed in My eyes and you'll go to Heaven... if not, to the fiery pit you go. can I post at HH?

To make positions clear ?

I think you could have stopped at just singling out Abrahamic religions... that apears to have been your intent afterall.

[Sweetie]

He figured that raw desire/will is the underlying reality, and everything else is a function of will, and that the very nature of will makes suffering inevitable - one is either frustrated by denied desire, or bored by fulfilled desire.

Hm, I quote "Stairway to Heaven" a few days ago and most people would read the paragraph and see some allusion to Christ and write off the paragraph, but why I posted it was because it alluded to the idea that happiness lies in the will and right reason.

I suppose I'm just responding to the last sentence which is that in my experience of Catholicism and mysticism, I was not frustrated by denied desire nor bored with fulfilled desire, suffering became as nothing and if anything, it became a joy but then I've always thought that suffering and joy were two sides of the same coin. Nonetheless, the actual experience of such a thing as opposed to the theoretical, it was interesting.

"That a disordered will cannot be happy is not an accidental decree, it is a state impossible by definition. Happiness is contingent upon an ordered will, like seeing is contingent upon having one’s eyes open. The condition in conditional joy is not a fee demanded of us before we are permitted to enjoy the world, it is the capacitation required of us before we can find the world enjoyable. The price for happiness is set by ontological conditions."

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0003/opinion/fagerberg.html

[beyelzu]

Daily means occuring, active or acted upon every day.
Actually, no, it doesn't in this context; it can mean direct or indirect intervention some days and not others.

Point is, that interventions happen in life. And you didn't reply to my point about redemption having an effect upon the peron in life ?

But my question is... what is the point of even putting that portion there on the front-page anyways?
To make positions clear ?
arent we missing the big picture here.

if the god takes in actions at all in the universe then by deinition he is an interventionist god and thus if a person believes that god does damn near anything currently they would be excluded from hh membership.

I am not making a value judgment on that, I am just pointing out that hh says fuck all about micromanagement.


I think I am sideways agreeing with you gurdur.

[beyelzu]

Actually, no, it doesn't in this context; it can mean direct or indirect intervention some days and not others.

Well then, take it up with Merriam and Webster, because they disagree with you. If someone tells you they'll do something daily, I imagine you'd expect them to do it every day... not some days and not others. Especially if you're paying them.

Point is, that interventions happen in life. And you didn't reply to my point about redemption having an effect upon the peron in life ?

So if I think that God steps in immediately after our death, and says "Here is how it's going to play out. Do you believe in Me now or not? Heaven or Hell, your choice. If assent, you'll be redeemed in My eyes and you'll go to Heaven... if not, to the fiery pit you go. can I post at HH?

To make positions clear ?

I think you could have stopped at just singling out Abrahamic religions... that apears to have been your intent afterall.


if your god works in the universe he is an interventionist god, more or less.

so do you think god does nothing at all now?

[Gurdur]

Well then, take it up with Merriam and Webster, because they disagree with you.
Bollocks.
Take it up with the English language -- you know just as well as I do that "daily life" can have two meanings, if not more; and since you get my meaning in any case, I dislike having my time wasted by this gunk
So if I think
How about you tell me what you really think and do ?
I don't have the time for silly abstruse aguments with no point, and especially I don' have time to go through all the myriad possibilities --- especially when there appears no point to doing so.
I think you could have stopped at just singling out Abrahamic religions... that apears to have been your intent afterall.
That doesn't make sense to me,.
To me, I am not so prejudiced as to think monotheism = Abrahamic.

And you are completely wrong about my intent --- I didn't write that bit.
I might get round to writing a new front page, if the others accept it, but I might not.
In any case, you've grasped the point even if you choose not to address it.
Interventionist theism of all and any of types precludes HH membership, and if anyone has a genuine worry on that score, they can always contact HH admin per PM here or email.
Cheers.

I'm leaving this thread since all genuine questions seem answered, and the other thread on the HH says much more.
Anyone have burning questions, contact me per PM.

[Gurdur]

I think I am sideways agreeing with you gurdur.
Obviously an Argument For Miracles, as well as Redemption for you. :P

I'm leaving this thread since all genuine questions seem answered, and the other thread on the HH says much more.
Anyone have burning questions, contact me per PM.