Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

I didn't mean to suggest you were up to anything sinister.

I have my own lexicon I guess. To be up to something and what we are “up to” only refers to our primary focus, conscious or sometimes semi- or unconscious.

[promethean75]

"But even Freud had this serious problem: that the strategy of psychologizing faith works just as well for Atheism. One could argue that just as belief in God could be a desire for a father figure, or a way of escaping stress, or whatever, one could argue that the cause of Atheism is a childish desire NOT to answer to a father, or a way of escaping the stress of moral duty."

Hold your horses, Manny. The default state of a person is atheism; children are taught about god and religion. Then, once this seed of paranoia - that big brother is watching you from on high - is planted in your head, any number of psychological traumas can result. An obvious and more common one being, anger at god, who allows so much suffering and misfortune in one's life. One then rebels against this father figure and everything follows from that.

You can call this atheism for the wrong reasons, which amounts to irrational/delusional behavior. Here, it was the religious indoctrination that made sick and brought about all the consequent behavior.

Although the 'argument from evil' is pretty fuckin solid, it's not the reason here for this particular behavior. This person is not thinking in terms of abstract arguments against the existence of god, but rather a personal vendetta against god, at this point.

So no, you can't reverse-psychologize Freud's premise here. The 'cause' of atheism, or this particular mood of atheism, IS religion in this case. The idea of the father against which one would later rebel, was put there by religion.

[Dubious]

"The one who believes in the Son has eternal life; but the one who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36)
It's that plain.

No it's not.

You'll find it is.

Like it or not, that's how God promises it's going to be.

The most pathetic gods ever invented are of the OT and the NT. To believe as literal anything so diminutive as this idiotic father & son story requires a brain scan to discover what went wrong!

The NT, and other additions not included, amount to one big propaganda text trying its best to forge a cult or religious movement. Propaganda begins in lies hopefully concealed. Paul begins that process with the Evangelists following. What was 2nd hand became 3rd hand. Was this son of god so illiterate he couldn't manage a few words himself?

[Immanuel Can]

The default state of a person is atheism

Apparently not. There are no ancient Atheist societies, no culture in history that has been devoid of religiosity.

One then rebels against this father figure and everything follows from that.

Yes, Atheism is rebellion against God. That much is true.

But what colossal foolishness to rebel against the very Source of one's own life and existence, and the locus of health of one's being and one's society. What a poisonous kind of rebellion that is...a sort of rebellion against one's own good.

Although the 'argument from evil' is pretty fuckin solid,

Against Atheism, you mean? Yes, it is.

An Atheist has no grounds for calling anything "evil." He believes there is no objective basis for any such assessment. He's simply complaining about things that, according to his own view, are inevitable products of an indifferent universe.

So if evil actually does exist, then it means that Atheism is not true. And if Atheism is true, evil does not exist, and there's no possibility of complaint.

This person is not thinking in terms of abstract arguments against the existence of god, but rather a personal vendetta against god, at this point.

That reminds me of a quotation from C.S. Lewis, who was once a devout Atheist himself. Reflecting on that period in his life, he wrote:

"I was at that time living like many atheists; in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with him for creating a world. Why should creatures have the burden of existence forced on them without their consent?"

A "whirl of contradictions" indeed. One cannot be angry or have a vendetta against the God one declares does not exist. And can you get back at Him, the one who allegedly does not exist, by refusing to believe in His existence? The project is laughable: such an Atheist cannot even figure out what he (dis-)believes.

So no, you can't reverse-psychologize Freud's premise here.

Yes, you can. Even Freud himself thought you could. Paul Vitz has an entire book called, Faith of the Fatherless (Ignatius, 2013), in which he looks at the correlation between famous Atheists and their hatred of their own fathers. I have the book here, on my shelf, actually.

Transference of that kind is not at all rare. Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Hitchens...all could serve as case studies of that. And it's obvious even from common sense, it's no harder to long for God not to exist than to yearn for His existence. Either can be mere "wish-fulfillment fantasy," to use Freud's term.

Either way, one's desires are irrelevant to the truth. If God does not exist, all the yearning in the world won't bring Him into existence; but if He exists, He exists....regardless of all Atheist aspirations to the contrary.

If the Atheist's desire to eliminate any heavenly Father is appropriate, he'll never know it. He''ll die, and go to the oblivion he expects. But if the Christian's faith in God is right, then both the Atheist and the Christian will find it out one day. So we will see what is wish-fulfillment, and what is not.

[Immanuel Can]

The most pathetic gods ever invented are of the OT and the NT.

Tell Him that yourself, when you see Him, if you dare.

And I promise you, one way or another, you will.

See you there.

[Dubious]

The most pathetic gods ever invented are of the OT and the NT.

Tell Him that yourself, when you see Him, if you dare.

And I promise you, one way or another, you will.

See you there.

...and when your promise fails, I won't even be able to laugh in your face because neither of us will have one or memory of having existed...including Jesus...who himself will be as all who came before and after.

If if his own people,the Jews, aren't worried by their neglect of him, why should I be?

[Nick_A]

"But even Freud had this serious problem: that the strategy of psychologizing faith works just as well for Atheism. One could argue that just as belief in God could be a desire for a father figure, or a way of escaping stress, or whatever, one could argue that the cause of Atheism is a childish desire NOT to answer to a father, or a way of escaping the stress of moral duty."

Hold your horses, Manny. The default state of a person is atheism; children are taught about god and religion. Then, once this seed of paranoia - that big brother is watching you from on high - is planted in your head, any number of psychological traumas can result. An obvious and more common one being, anger at god, who allows so much suffering and misfortune in one's life. One then rebels against this father figure and everything follows from that.

You can call this atheism for the wrong reasons, which amounts to irrational/delusional behavior. Here, it was the religious indoctrination that made sick and brought about all the consequent behavior.

Although the 'argument from evil' is pretty fuckin solid, it's not the reason here for this particular behavior. This person is not thinking in terms of abstract arguments against the existence of god, but rather a personal vendetta against god, at this point.

So no, you can't reverse-psychologize Freud's premise here. The 'cause' of atheism, or this particular mood of atheism, IS religion in this case. The idea of the father against which one would later rebel, was put there by religion.

You've raised an interesting question. Is the denial of God a REACTION to negative experiences one learns when young or an impartial ACTION based opon false assumptions about what is real?

This is an excerpt from a discussion between Jacob Needleman and Richard Whittaker:

...............I recovered quite well, but I had to find a few other people who shared my hunger. It is the hunger you're speaking of. That is what Plato called eros—a word that's come down to us which has taken on a sexual association. But for Plato it had to do, in part, with a striving that is innate in us, a striving to participate with one's mind, one's consciousness, in something greater than oneself. A love of wisdom, if you like, a love of being.

Eros is depicted in Plato's text, The Symposium, as half man, half god, a kind of intermediate force between the gods and mortals. It is a very interesting idea. Eros is what gives birth to philosophy. Modern philosophy often translates the word "wonder" merely as "curiosity," the desire to figure things out, or to intellectually solve problems rather than confronting the depth of these questions, pondering, reflecting, being humbled by them. In this way, philosophy becomes an exercise in meaningless ingenuity...............

The attraction to our Source is natural and normal. How it is distorted and manipulated is neither normal or natural. It is no wonder that some rebel against it.

Jacob Needleman was an atheist in his younger years as was Simone
weil. Yet their intellect and experiences enabled them to see through the effects of manipulation and open to the depth of meaning concealed in the Gospels and written on by the church fathers. It answered their questions.

[promethean75]

"Apparently not. There are no ancient Atheist societies, no culture in history that has been devoid of religiosity."

I said person, not society. The order of development is something like this: primitive man misunderstands aspects of his experience and the workings of natural phenomena, then attributes these effects and things to some personified force or intelligent being like himself, which must be making them happen. Out of this he creates a record of ideas and concepts (we're in the language phase now) that are then passed down and taught to future generations, first through oration and story, then through text. And this is how a society becomes religious. I had mentioned Comte's three stage theory to explain this, before. The progression from animism to fetishism to paganism to polytheism to monotheism and finally to atheism (one would hope).

"A "whirl of contradictions" indeed. One cannot be angry or have a vendetta against the God one declares does not exist. And can you get back at Him, the one who allegedly does not exist, by refusing to believe in His existence? The project is laughable: such an Atheist cannot even figure out what he (dis-)believes."

Yeah admittedly all this seems pretty nutty, but there's an underlying logic supporting what appears to be an irrational and untenable position. Here's how it works. An atheist can disbelieve in the existence of a god, while at the same time forming a critical attitude toward a would-be god if indeed it did exist. And why is this? Because any monotheistic god is necessarily anthropomorphic by conception... which means the nature of this god would be much like the nature of intelligent human beings. As such, this god would be suspect of all the same dubious character qualities and flaws that humans can have; capable of caprice, deception, indecisiveness, forgiveness, indifference, etc.

This being the case, an atheist can entertain the possibility of a god existing, and form a hostile attitude toward this god, as-if and just in case said god existed. Said another way, an atheist can certainly conclude that IF such a god existed, he/she would have to be a total asshole. One need only look at the world closely to draw this inference. So it's not the case that the atheist voices a silly contradiction when he says 'i hate god but god doesn't exist'. What he means is, I wouldn't worship this god if it DID exist.

And the abrahamic religions are the gold medalists of the anthropomorphic conceptions of god. Hence, all the ridiculous character traits attributed to this god... a jealous, wrathful, spiteful, self-engrossed narcissist who can't make up his mind and demands absolute praise even after telling a nigga to kill his own son when he's not trying another nigga's loyalty in a bet with Satan (who he created) by infesting him with boils and destroying his life.

The only other option you have to this laughable interpretation of god, is one along the lines of what spinoza proposed. But what he proposed takes away all the things that make god so familiar and personable, despite all the frivolous qualities the grovellers conveniently overlook. It is as Nietzsche described it; one will suffer anything provided they are given a meaning for it. And that's precisely what comes with a relationship to an anthropomorphic god. A story of masochistic torture and confusion so long as one is granted eternal life in exchange for a life of self deprication and cowardly grovelling.

And that, gentleman sir, is something I cannot bring myself to do.

If I were to believe in an anthropomorphic god, I could only ever perceive him as my pupil... and perhaps not my brightest one, at that. But certainly not my master. No, never that.

So now maybe you understand the mind of the mad iconoclast a little better. To even ax me to believe in such a god is insult enough... but to demand that I worship him? You've got another thing comin...

[promethean75]

"Yes, Atheism is rebellion against God. That much is true."

No that's satanism. An atheist believes that neither of those jokers exist. A militant atheist is all that and then some. He's got a beef with any moron who is insolent enough to believe in em, because they're always making problems for the world.

"But what colossal foolishness to rebel against the very Source of one's own life and existence, and the locus of health of one's being and one's society. What a poisonous kind of rebellion that is...a sort of rebellion against one's own good."

Okay but one has to first believe in God before a rebellion can be counted as foolish. An atheist materialist who believes a positively charged void is quite capable of producing biological life if given enough time, isn't being foolish to deny belief that a god made it all happen.

"An Atheist has no grounds for calling anything "evil."

No dude you don't know what the argument from evil is? Sheesh. Your homeboy Epicurus put it first, they say. Either god can prevent evil and he will not, or he wishes to prevent evil and he cannot. If the former, he isn't benevolent. If the latter, he isn't omnipotent.

And don't try the whole 'well god had to allow evil so we could choose, etc' argument because I've already shown that freewill is even more impossible if a god did exist. Like the whole line of logic to get out of that dilemma is wonky af, bruh.

[Immanuel Can]

...and when your promise fails, I won't even be able to laugh in your face because neither of us will have one or memory of having existed...including Jesus...who himself will be as all who came before and after.

For your own sake, not mine, I would encourage you to be careful what you say.

"But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36)

That's not my promise: it comes from Jesus Christ Himself.

So count on it.

[promethean75]

"For your own sake, not mine, I would encourage you to be careful what you say."

Step aside, dubious. I got this

[Dubious]

...and when your promise fails, I won't even be able to laugh in your face because neither of us will have one or memory of having existed...including Jesus...who himself will be as all who came before and after.

For your own sake, not mine, I would encourage you to be careful what you say.

"But I tell you that for every careless word that people speak, they will give an account of it on the day of judgment." (Matthew 12:36)

That's not my promise: it comes from Jesus Christ Himself.

So count on it.

But what do you say to the fact the Jews themselves, "god's Chosen People", would be condemned for their non-belief in Jesus?

Is there no such thing as freedom of speech in god's hierarchy? Is it as imperative to believe in Jesus not to be condemned forever as it was an unconditional requirement to believe in Hitler as the absolute Fuehrer not to be killed? It looks like the two have something in common!

...say anything negative about either and your goose is cooked!

[Immanuel Can]

But what do you say to the fact the Jews themselves would be condemned "god's Chosen People" for non-belief in Jesus?

Your question fails to make grammatical sense. I can't tell quite what you're asking. I think maybe you're not sure how to use the word "condemned."

But let me try to answer what you may be asking.

Every individual will answer for himself. Period. Nothing else is important to you to know right now. You may not realize that, but it's the truth.

It's you that has to prepare your own answer: let Jewish folks answer for themselves. They won't answer for you.

[Dubious]

But what do you say to the fact the Jews themselves would be condemned "god's Chosen People" for non-belief in Jesus?

Your question fails to make grammatical sense. I can't tell quite what you're asking. I think maybe you're not sure how to use the word "condemned."

But let me try to answer what you may be asking.

Every individual will answer for himself. Period. Nothing else is important to you to know right now. You may not realize that, but it's the truth.

It's you that has to prepare your own answer: let Jewish folks answer for themselves. They won't answer for you.

It makes perfect grammatical sense.

Jews don't believe in Jesus; all who don't believe in Jesus are condemned...so would not the Jews also have to be condemned??

Simple enough question!

[Immanuel Can]

Jews don't believe in Jesus; all who don't believe in Jesus are condemned...so would not the Jews also have to be condemned??

Some Jews do believe in Jesus. They are called "Messianic Jews." And more yet will. See Zechariah 12:10.

But that will not have anything to do with you, will it?