Why do we Existance?

[TheFeatheredÆtheling]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Wow? A question about guilt! Okay, this is an example of how repressed your thinking is (in my opinion) due to your religious beliefs.

To answer directly, I used to feel guilty when I was was carrying around the vestiges of my parents Catholicism on my shoulders. Once I shrugged off those shackles and met the true arbiter of good and evil in the world (my empathy and conscience) I was able to determine that I could have a threesome with 2 adult consenting females and have a great time, as long as I was completely honest about my intentions from the beginning. Since then I have enjoyed many amazing hedonistic adventures, and the only time I've felt guilty was when one of the women I played with did not understand that I did not intend to pursue a romantic relationship at that time. I had been completely honest with her (stating I was not interested in a relationship in plain words up front) and the fault for the misunderstanding was completely hers, so the guilt was actually misplaced, but I felt bad that she felt bad.

I'd like to ask you - what's so great about feeling guilt for things that give people pleasure?

Thanks for your honesty. There is nothing "great" about guilt. Though guilt is not in itself a bad thing, it often becomes the cause of suffering and misery in the lives of people because we are imperfect (and we know it); we inevitably will fail in this regard. There is a difference between "pleasure" and "joy". "Pleasure" (meaning "sin") is insatiable and inherently selfish; it's a never-ending entrappment. The more you take, the more you need. The more you indulge in it, the less fulfilled you are. This is true. Ultimately, "pleasure" is nothing but vanity and leads nowhere. Freedom from sin (and sin's resulting guilt, separation from God, negative earthly consequences, etc) is one of the most important reasons why I try to follow God.

(Ecclesiastes 1:1-3, 10,11)
1 I thought in my heart, "Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good." But that also proved to be meaningless. 2 "Laughter," I said, "is foolish. And what does pleasure accomplish?" 3 I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly—my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was worthwhile for men to do under heaven during the few days of their lives.

10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my work,
and this was the reward for all my labor.

11 Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun.

[Alan]

#2:

Stop pussyfooting around and answer the god damn question:

Why the fuck believe in the Bible above thousands of other holy books? all of them claim to be the ultimate truth.

[Despanan]

I'd like to ask you - what's so great about feeling guilt for things that give people pleasure?

Simple: It's absolutely GREAT to control someone else's life and bend it to your own purposes.

The thing is, this is really difficult to do when someone is enjoying their life and thinks they have things figured out. If you can convince someone that the things which make them happy are actually vices, then you place them in an infinite guilt loop: They're miseable when they're miserable, they're miserable when they're happy, and they're only happy when they're doing what you want them to do (and usually they're not that happy, which makes them feel more guilt, for not enjoying the right things!)

Essentially, "warp minds for fun and profit!" Scientology is getting more press with this tactic lately, but Christianity really perfected it a few hundred years ago.

[Ben Lahnger]

Not to mention, how can you believe the Bible is the one true word of a god when it contains atrocities like Leviticus? Or do you just pick and choose what parts you believe? Are some parts more "direct from god" and some parts more "written by fallible man"?

In fact, how do you resolve the fact that instruction in some parts of the book contradicts instruction in other parts of the book?

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by Despanan

Simple: It's absolutely GREAT to control someone else's life and bend it to your own purposes.

The thing is, this is really difficult to do when someone is enjoying their life and thinks they have things figured out. If you can convince someone that the things which make them happy are actually vices, then you place them in an infinite guilt loop: They're miseable when they're miserable, they're miserable when they're happy, and they're only happy when they're doing what you want them to do (and usually they're not that happy, which makes them feel more guilt, for not enjoying the right things!)

Essentially, "warp minds for fun and profit!" Scientology is getting more press with this tactic lately, but Christianity really perfected it a few hundred years ago.

Despanan, I really appreciate your contributions to the thread, but I really want Etherling to answer this question about guilt. (Plus, I mentioned that I once was Catholic, so you know I already knew all that.)

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

Thanks for your honesty. There is nothing "great" about guilt. Though guilt is not in itself a bad thing, it often becomes the cause of suffering and misery in the lives of people because we are imperfect (and we know it); we inevitably will fail in this regard. There is a difference between "pleasure" and "joy". "Pleasure" (meaning "sin") is insatiable and inherently selfish; it's a never-ending entrappment. The more you take, the more you need. The more you indulge in it, the less fulfilled you are.

Interesting, but wrong. I equate giving someone sexual pleasure with cooking good food for them. While it is true that as long as we live our desire for it is insatiable and inherently selfish, it is not a sin nor is there anything wrong with it. The same applies to sex, and the only way you can apply negativity to it is by injecting religious values that have no origin in reality.

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

This is true. Ultimately, "pleasure" is nothing but vanity and leads nowhere.

Eating food is pleasurable. I'm of a mind that one should eat in moderation, but one should feel free to enjoy the wide buffet of flavors in the world. Why would one feel guilty about that? If you are suggesting you believe in a god who created me to want food and made it a sensory experience for me, but dictates that in some way I should feel guilty about feeling pleasure during the act, I can't possible take such a confoundingly screwed-up entity seriously.

Now swap every incident of "eat" or "eating food" in that paragraph with "sex" or "having sex" and I will feel the same way.

The rest of your response was bible quotation ... which you're not going to win me over with, because it's just a confusing, contradictory collection of books written by different people with different agendas and edited over time to fit the needs of other people. It's not a proof of ANYTHING.

If you choose to believe it, have at. But if you engage in this debate here and now, recognize that it has no power to make your case.

[KontanKarite]

[TheFeatheredÆtheling]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Interesting, but wrong. I equate giving someone sexual pleasure with cooking good food for them. While it is true that as long as we live our desire for it is insatiable and inherently selfish, it is not a sin nor is there anything wrong with it. The same applies to sex, and the only way you can apply negativity to it is by injecting religious values that have no origin in reality.

Eating food is pleasurable. I'm of a mind that one should eat in moderation, but one should feel free to enjoy the wide buffet of flavors in the world. Why would one feel guilty about that? If you are suggesting you believe in a god who created me to want food and made it a sensory experience for me, but dictates that in some way I should feel guilty about feeling pleasure during the act, I can't possible take such a confoundingly screwed-up entity seriously.

Now swap every incident of "eat" or "eating food" in that paragraph with "sex" or "having sex" and I will feel the same way.

Alright. However, do remember that I specified "pleasure" as "sin" (i.e. "sinful pleasure") in my previous post. Food, sex, and other such things are both a necessity (well, food is a necessity) and a blessing in a natural sense; they are created for us and are meant to be enjoyed in this lifetime. I do believe that God had a plan though; when we deviate from this good plan, then it becomes sin. Like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, we can be satisfied with what is good, fitting, and honorable; or we can rebel against God's commandments and accept the innevitable consequences. Remember (from you background) Romans 6: 20-23:

20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. 21 What fruit did you have then in the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 But now having been set free from sin, and having become slaves of God, you have your fruit to holiness, and the end, everlasting life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

"Death" in the phrase "for the wages of sin is death" has multiple meanings. Sin can bring physical death (venarial disease, health issues associated with alcoholism, drug abuse, financial hardships, imprisonment), phsychological death (guilt, hatred, depression, loneliness, hopelessness, confusion), and finally spiritual death. "Pleasure" (and I do mean sinful pleasure) is a deceptive snare.

I don't know what they taught you back in Catholic school(?) Some Christians follow the "suffering brings us closer to God" approach, but I don't believe that this is Biblical. Many religions do such things in order to make recompense for sins, but we cannot save ourselves by any kind of deprivation, fire-walking, whipping, piecings, or any of the other things that people do in an attempt to make up for their sins.

I'd like to point out that the Bible's direction for life is not really that bad. For instance, concerning sex, would it really be such a great sacrifice to devote myself to just one woman in marriage? In my opinion: no. In many ways, this seems to be more natural and more profitable than chasing women around recklessly without commitment. If your marriage is good, isn't mutual loyalty between you and your wife actually the ideal way ~ the most happy and thus pleasurable way?

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

The rest of your response was bible quotation ... which you're not going to win me over with, because it's just a confusing, contradictory collection of books written by different people with different agendas and edited over time to fit the needs of other people. It's not a proof of ANYTHING.

If you choose to believe it, have at. But if you engage in this debate here and now, recognize that it has no power to make your case.

I see; however, you did say earlier to Despanan that you wanted me to answer you, and I have no problem doing so. And as far as the Bible having no power to make a case here goes, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Many people besides us are reading these posts right now, and scripture should by no means be underestimated. Honestly, my faith is nothing without the Bible. To try to argue anything for the sake of Christianity without the Bible is pointless, and I believe that the mistakes made by the Church throught history all the way up to today are due to weakness, hypocrasy, or ignorance in relation to the Bible.

But enough about the Bible for now; let's look at atheism again.

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Not to mention, how can you believe the Bible is the one true word of a god when it contains atrocities like Leviticus? Or do you just pick and choose what parts you believe? Are some parts more "direct from god" and some parts more "written by fallible man".

You claim that Leviticus is an atrocity. I ask you: by whose authority do you claim this? What gives you the right to make this judgement? Unlike what Alan said about me not listening to you guys, I have been. You and the others who have contributed to this conversation have all expressed a kind of "morality" of sorts: a desire to do good.

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

You wouldn't have the heart to cleave to my codes of morals because mine are based on the absence of a god. My ethics aren't made from a fear of retribution from an angry god or even the submissive love of a god. My own sense of guilt and what I feel is logically right and wrong is good enough.

Kontan mentioned a sense of guilt (a feeling) and what he feels is logically right and wrong. He was very careful in his wording here. Kontan realises that his "logic of right and wrong", as he calls it, is his own feeling.

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Also, while self-empowerment of this nature could lead to the greatest amount of self-indulgence, lack of concern for others and depravity, I've found that my own natural sense of empathy for my fellow man leads me to want to do good to them. I believe I have the power to make the world a better place, and that benefits my fellow man AND myself. And I still get to enjoy the depravity!

You mentioned that your "sense of empathy" (again, a feeling/emotion) causes you to want to do good to your fellow man.

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

My purpose in life is to maximize my own happiness. That said, my own happiness is linked inextricably with the welfare of my family and of my friends, as well as with the feeling that I'm contributing in a positive way to the society in which I live.

Gothicus linked the feeling of contributing in a positive way to the society in which he lives as well as the welfare of his family and friends to his happiness. Am I bashing you guys for your convictions? Of course not. It's good that you have a sense of what is "right". However, I want to point out something to you. An atheist supposedly "cleaves to reason", and I'm sure that you'll all agree with that statement. Gothicus stated it well when he said:

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

An atheist merely cleaves to reason, refusing to accept an idea that is uncorroborated by evidence-- were god to offer some real, meaningful proof of his existence, we would by no means continue to deny it, but faith, as you acknowledged, is essential to salvation, and faith, again as you acknowledged, can't be defined in rational terms. Faith is based on vague 'feelings' of unnameable origin, and am I really to blame for lacking those 'feelings'?

Ben, you and the others have each admitted your sense of what is "right" to be based upon your feelings. Since you claim to cleave to reason, prove to me via reason why Leviticus is an atrocity. From an atheist's perspective, who decides what is an atrocity or not? Do you? I'd like for you to answer this question. Also, back to what Gothicus said above, why do you make this particular exception to the rule that an atheist refuses "to accept an idea that is uncorroborated by evidence"? If you were true atheists, you would realise that because what you believe to be "right" ~being based wholly upon your emotions and feelings~ is ultimately subjective and "uncorraborated by evidence" (like God), it holds no weight. Why do you make this exception?

[Ben Lahnger]

First of all, you took my statement about empathy and restated it as an understanding of feelings. That is not correct. Empathy is logic expressed so:

I have experienced an event. It was bad (yes, some emotion or feelings likely helped render that judgement.) I see another human being like me experience the same event. So I conclude logically that this is bad for them too. And I reach the logical conclusion that I do not want the bad event to ever occur to me or that other person again.

Second, to address Leviticus, that book says trafficking in human slavery is okay, but people who touch pigskin or work on Sunday should be put to death, among other things. You don't have a problem with that?

[Alan]

#3


Stop pussyfooting around and answer the god damn question:

Why the fuck believe in the Bible above thousands of other holy books? all of them claim to be the ultimate truth.

[gothicusmaximus]

Aethling, your most recent post muddles two concepts. I acknowledged that morality is entirely based on feelings, that what one considers 'good' proceeds directly from what makes him feel good. Morality is subjective, essentially a consensus based on the collective feelings of mankind. Reality, however, is not an invention of humanity in the same way. We both agree that reality is absolute, that there can be but one truth of what is real-- if we don't, this is a totally different conversation.

An individual moral code develops thusly:
"Seeing others hurt makes me feel bad, and thus to hurt others without necessity is bad."

A broader, social morality develops thusly:
"Seeing others hurt makes us feel bad, and thus those who have hurt others without necessity have done a bad thing."

Religion, on the other hand, develops thusly:
"Considering the possibility that there is not a blissful, eternal afterlife awaiting me upon death makes me feel bad, and thus there is a blissful, eternal afterlife awaiting me upon death."

Do you see the difference? A morality based on human feelings is totally rational, and, in fact, any other morality would be irrational, for morality is born from human feelings. A cosmology based on human feelings, conversely, is totally irrational, as human feelings have nothing to do with the origin or mechanism of the universe.

Ben's objection to Leviticus is based in his own morality, which generally follows the above "seeing others hurt makes me feel bad, and thus to hurt others without necessity is bad" paradigm. Leviticus puts forth a corollary to the example of religious reasoning above-- "Considering the the possibility that there is not a blissful, eternal afterlife awaiting me upon death makes me feel bad, and thus there is a blissful, eternal afterlife awaiting me upon death. In order to get there, I must kill those who work on the sabbath, and thus killing those who work on the sabbath is good."-- which naturally is diametrically opposed to Ben's morality.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

Kontan mentioned a sense of guilt (a feeling) and what he feels is logically right and wrong. He was very careful in his wording here. Kontan realises that his "logic of right and wrong", as he calls it, is his own feeling.

...You mentioned that your "sense of empathy" (again, a feeling/emotion) causes you to want to do good to your fellow man.


If you were true atheists, you would realise that because what you believe to be "right" ~being based wholly upon your emotions and feelings~ is ultimately subjective and "uncorraborated by evidence" (like God), it holds no weight. Why do you make this exception?

No.

You're exploiting the language Kontan and Ben chose to employ in an attempt to incorrectly attribute a position based on reason to blind emotion. It was neither their intent, nor was it in any way implied that they were using "feel" and "sense" etc. in the way which you are alledging. You're manufacturing a straw man argument in an attempt to equate a reasoned, sensible position to an arbitary one. It would be the same as if Alan had said "I pray you answer my question" and you went: "Hey! You're praying! You're the same as me!"

That's stupid. Stop it.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Ben's objection to Leviticus is based in his own morality, which generally follows the above "seeing others hurt makes me feel bad, and thus to hurt others without necessity is bad" paradigm. Leviticus puts forth a corollary to the example of religious reasoning above-- "Considering the the possibility that there is not a blissful, eternal afterlife awaiting me upon death makes me feel bad, and thus there is a blissful, eternal afterlife awaiting me upon death. In order to get there, I must kill those who work on the sabbath, and thus killing those who work on the sabbath is good."-- which naturally is diametrically opposed to Ben's morality.

I'd also say that Ben and Kontan were arguing that there are ethical problems with Leviticus and the like, Mainly that many of God's commandments within are unethical as well as morally repugnant.

I know I have ethical problems with selling my daughter into slavery and killing gays and fortune tellers.

[xion]

to give god companionship and take care of the earth .

[Alan]

Shut up, dude.

[KontanKarite]

The only thing that I've concluded here is that Feathered is saying that because the bible says so, his world view of right and wrong are correct. That without his book, it is impossible to be decent human beings.

From the get go, he's been passively insulting me, calling me inherently evil and just because he's throwing bible quotes at me, it reduces me down to a salivating, angry savage.

His passive judgment is insulting. His reasoning is not reasoning at all, it's just circular logic saying that you're better than us or that your morals are somehow better because some book says so.

...I'm not going to go into my aggressive tactics. His own words depict him vile enough. I'm done with him.

The rest of you, have fun.

[TheFeatheredÆtheling]

Kontan, I do believe that you're wrong about me, but I won't go into it. I made a somewhat snide comment earlier about you guys not being "real" atheists, but I regret this statement because it wasn't really the point I was trying to make. You may find my beliefs themselves to be insulting or unethical, but I haven't actually insulted any of you (except perhaps for the above-mentioned slip). I appreciate your civility in this conversation ~especially Kontan, Ben, and Gothicus. I know that you have strong feelings on this matter, but I, like Kontan, would like to back off for now. I think that we've pretty much established that we are not going to agree any time soon on these matters. Our concepts of "reality" itself are different, and that is the problem. You guys have made your points well enough, and I do think that I understand where you're coming from even though I don't aggree. Ben, if you want me to continue this conversation about Leviticus, Biblical contradictions, morality, etc; I will. Otherwise, I'm going to drop this whole thing and go back to haunting the literature section.

[Ben Lahnger]

I have no interest in dissuading you from your beliefs (not that I think that would be easily accomplished), and that would be the only reason I would pursue the conversation about the content of the bible.

By the way, in that last statement you've made the same mistake ... attributing "feelings" to a belief that I have come to through rational consideration. Your belief system is the one that is resonant with "feelings", as you must "feel" that the bible is the only true holy book of all the holy books mankind have promoted.

[Despanan]

I'm honestly confused with the whole "True Atheist" dealy.

a "true" atheist is simply someone who rejects the supernatural. It's not like we have dogma or rules enforcing rationality.

There certainly are plent of dumbfuck, irrational atheists out here, it doesn't disqualify them from being atheists, it just makes them morons.

[Alan]

#4


Stop pussyfooting around and answer the god damn question:

Why the fuck believe in the Bible above thousands of other holy books? all of them claim to be the ultimate truth.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Alan

#4


Stop pussyfooting around and answer the god damn question:

Why the fuck believe in the Bible above thousands of other holy books? all of them claim to be the ultimate truth.

I don't think you're going to get an answer, Alan.

[viscus]

Originally Posted by Alan

#4


Stop pussyfooting around and answer the god damn question:

Why the fuck believe in the Bible above thousands of other holy books? all of them claim to be the ultimate truth.

Some kind of hallucination? Indoctrinated as a child?

Just some conjecture.

[vindicatedxjin]