(November 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Somewhere in the narrative I believe there is a core truth or wisdom that has been (possibly) irreparably garbled in transmission. The source of this core truth or wisdom may be anything, even the combined experiences of all that went into it's manufacture. I choose to believe that this source is god...and assigning to it whatever I can salvage out of the narrative as a whole is useful to me, it allows me to better myself in ways that I have deemed valuable to me. If this source were something other than a god (as I alluded to above) it would matter very little to me, as the truth and wisdom I endeavor to extract from the narrative is an issue of practical, not literal, concern.

I believe that christ's (if christ can be said to -at the very least- be the personification or anthropomorphism of all that we might value in ourselves) example can save me, essentially, from -myself-. From all of the things that might exist within me and devalue this thing I call my self, or soul. This example, like the narrative as a whole, may also have been garbled in transmission, and as such I reserve the right to gather unto me what I find useful and good, and discard that which I do not. "

Sounds like:

"I like to eat shit because occasionally there is a piece of sweet corn in it!"

True enough, but for some, if the kernel of corn is sweet enough, they'll munch through an entire valley of shit to get at it. I don't even want to mention how many females I munched through before i found the sweet kernel of womanhood I was looking for...for example..lol. So long as I maintain that the experience is personal, the conclusion my own, the influence ending within my own sphere, what can we really criticize about this?

I think that intelligent christians are way worse than the dumb ones. I can excuse illeterate people for believing in such nonsense, the same cannot be said about the others.

(November 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Somewhere in the narrative I believe there is a core truth or wisdom that has been (possibly) irreparably garbled in transmission. The source of this core truth or wisdom may be anything, even the combined experiences of all that went into it's manufacture. I choose to believe that this source is god...and assigning to it whatever I can salvage out of the narrative as a whole is useful to me, it allows me to better myself in ways that I have deemed valuable to me. If this source were something other than a god (as I alluded to above) it would matter very little to me, as the truth and wisdom I endeavor to extract from the narrative is an issue of practical, not literal, concern.

I believe that christ's (if christ can be said to -at the very least- be the personification or anthropomorphism of all that we might value in ourselves) example can save me, essentially, from -myself-. From all of the things that might exist within me and devalue this thing I call my self, or soul. This example, like the narrative as a whole, may also have been garbled in transmission, and as such I reserve the right to gather unto me what I find useful and good, and discard that which I do not. "

Maybe something like that Whatevs?

That seems like it might work. Who is the author?

If someone makes it into early adulthood enshrouded in the Christian myth maybe they have to make their peace with the whole narrative in a way those of us who got out early can't imagine. I think of my niece who joined a gang, got into meth and spends lots of time behind bars. Apparently she has killed as a rite of entry and there seems to be something about that which prevents her leaving. It almost seems she cannot forgive herself or cut her self a break. In the same way, perhaps an adult who has proselytized for jesus is like that. They have the blood of conversion to christ on their hands. Perhaps that makes it tough to leave.

It isn't anything any of us would choose but maybe it represents an achievement if they are able to transcend the literal and go for something more allegorical. They may have gotten in deeper and therefore be having a harder time extricating themselves.

---

(November 17, 2012 at 2:15 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Sounds like:

"I like to eat shit because occasionally there is a piece of sweet corn in it!"

Nice. Sure wouldn't want to miss a sweet kernal of corn, would you? Adds another layer of meaning to the Catholic wafer that represents the body of Christ. Fundamentalists eat of the turd of God lest they miss a holy kernel of truth.

I wouldn't know, someone somewhere has probably said something like it before I ever twisted my way through the maze.
(that's all rhythm up there though...terrible fucking heathen with a hardened heart and all)

Well......let's imagine a particularly virulent ex-fundy that has spent their life arguing for the most horrid pieces of the narrative. If such a person lost their faith..it would be easy to imagine how embarrassing the memory of those arguments might be, how much shame or pain or guilt they might feel for some batshit thing they said. The same could as easily be true in the reverse...the conversion to faith scenario. In either case, a desire to avoid ownership of that guilt, shame, pain, what have you...might prevent someone from "leaving behind" their old views, publicly or even privately. Our own self-image (and the image we project outwardly) appears to be a powerful motivator. Ultimately the only person that would know how powerful that motivator is (and how they plan on making their peace..whatever peace needs be made), is the person in question.

I'd say that an exhaustive exploration of why some particular piece of a religious narrative is important to you (if it were) -without any pretense to it's literal truth- would yield far more insight into ones self, and perhaps..as a consequence, positions that are much easier to justify. Perhaps even positions that you could easily concede as being untenable in this or that situation...... even vapid as explanations or references to reality, but still valuable to one's self (and as a bonus..as per the above...you might even figure out -why- they're valuable - you might be able to explain it to others).

I think this sort of "faith" would be worlds more compelling than the "it's twuuu it's twuuu it's twuuuu" variety. More like "Okay, it may not be - I certainly can't prove to anyone that it is- but I can't exactly control all of the things I believe (or don't), however - the reason that I would like for it to be true is thus, and thus, and thus"

(trying to imagine a "reasonable faith" is, to me, extremely difficult. I can't eve say that It's possible for me to do so..but I can imagine a faith (no reason required) that avoids making unreasonable claims.)

(November 15, 2012 at 6:02 am)Darnem Wrote: Why do you push your religion of Atheism on others when there is no evidence that God doesn't exist?

Why did Galileo tell the truth about the earth rotating around the sun when most people thought the sun rotated around the earth?

Why do people still believe that babies can be born without two sets of DNA when we now know what DNA is?

Why do people believe a human can survive perminante death and rigor mortis when we now know what rigor mortis is?

Why don't you believe you will get 72 virgins? Why don't you believe in multiple armed deities like Hindus do? Why don't you believe that the sun is a god like the Ancient egyptians did?

The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more god claim than you do. Understand why you reject all other claims besides yours and you'll understand why we reject all invisible friend claims.

There never was a magic baby. There was never a magic man. No one escapes death. There is no such thing as a Muslim soul or Hindu soul or Christian soul. There are merely people, just like the ancient polytheists, people today off all sorts of superstitions who like what they believe and are desperately gullible to believe in their fantasies.

I don' think it is good to live in the past. If people never questioned social norms our species would have never left the caves.

OH and FYI atheism is a religion like "off" is a TV channel. "Atheist" is not a religion. It is a position. Atheists do not agree on all things all the time and we have no books or gods to pray to, nor do we have churches or worship anyone.

AND if you had bothered to spend any time here before you posted this, you'd know that other than not believing in ANY god or gods or super natural, you'd know, outside of that we do not agree on all things all the time. We are individuals, not a religion.

We don't even agree on that supernatural clause at the end there...hehehe. So much for our fucking religion...goddamned schisms.

(November 17, 2012 at 3:48 pm)Brian37 Wrote: OH and FYI atheism is a religion like "off" is a TV channel.

Atheism is a religion...

...like bald is a hair color/style.

...like sterile is a bacterium.

...like deceased is a lifestyle.

...like mute is a language.

...like silence is a sound.

...like apathy is a motivation.

...like chaos is a uniformity.

(November 17, 2012 at 4:11 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(November 17, 2012 at 3:48 pm)Brian37 Wrote: OH and FYI atheism is a religion like "off" is a TV channel.

Atheism is a religion...

...like bald is a hair color/style.

...like sterile is a bacterium.

...like deceased is a lifestyle.

...like mute is a language.

...like silence is a sound.

...like apathy is a motivation.

...like chaos is a uniformity.

I think we should start reversing it; saying, for example: "Not collecting stamps is a hobby like atheism is a religion."

I'm really into not playing tennis.
I was quite'good at not playing tennis all my life, i never played it, but these days it has become a major thing.
i recently did not sign 2 lucrative sponsor deals, and if everything goes well, i'm not playing my 1st important game next week.....