RE: Rant against anti-atheist agnostics.
September 26, 2014 at 3:54 am
(This post was last modified: September 26, 2014 at 4:06 am by fr0d0.)
(September 25, 2014 at 12:59 pm)Tonus Wrote:(September 25, 2014 at 12:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No, I'm talking about what hinders your current actions. What prevents you functioning to your full potential. The cumulative effect is draining I guess.But there are any number of ways to deal with issues of self-esteem or self-worth or achieving our potential. The religious or spiritual approach can be double-edged: a person may feel better from the belief that there is a cosmic father-figure who cares about him and offers him a path to redemption, or he may 'accept' that he is naught but a fallen creature, undeserving of redemption, whose only option is to cheat his fate by letting a better person take the fall.
The only ways to deal with it are to face it (accept vicarious sacrifice) or ignore it and accept it (suffering) as reality.
(September 25, 2014 at 9:12 pm)Brakeman Wrote:(September 25, 2014 at 12:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Yeah, you're lost in the dogma, where I'm talking about our general condition as humans. Humans aren't perfect, and like it or not, you're part of the club.
You're dodging the question. What debt does Rhythm owe as "our general condition as humans?" How did he agree and benefit from this debt?
He didn't agree or benefit because he doesn't accept (understand) the solution.
He owes himself a life
(September 25, 2014 at 9:22 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It doesn't matter. I owe a debt and I cannot repay it <snip> Should I accept this "gift"?
What sort of person would you be if someone made the ultimate sacrifice for you and you rejected it? That would make you quite the low life right? "Thanks friend, but I'm a big man and my pride would rather me fight my own battles no matter what. Someone stole my dummy as a kid."
(September 25, 2014 at 9:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(September 25, 2014 at 12:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You don't lose. I don't lose. Perfect solution.
Would you want to understand or would you rather remain in ignorance?
I think we all lose, by the dimunition of personal responsibility, and even more by the dilution of moral concepts. Are you really arguing that killing an innocent to expiate the sins he hasn't committed is just?
If it is just in your view, that means your morals are relative -- because that is no action you'd condone from any living human, presumably, meaning that there are at least two sets of morals depending on who is the actor.
If it is not just, that means your god has at least one imperfection on his account.
So, God went beyond generosity and you think that equals evil? That's some spin you got going.
