However, for someone like me, you're still missing a major part of my belief system, and so those of us with strong and firm beliefs don't really find that aspect important.
I know all this, but that wasn't what I was addressing. Other atheist thinkers talk about belief all the time.
I wanted to talk about this because the experiential part of organised religion is completely ignored and dismissed by atheist thinkers, speakers and writers. It's not the only part, but it is a big part that needs more attention.
I wanted to talk about this because the experiential part of organised religion is completely ignored and dismissed by atheist thinkers, speakers and writers. It's not the only part, but it is a big part that needs more attention.
I found a lot of you mentioned matches pretty well with what Sam Harris has been discussing and trying to mention to atheists these days.
Similarly, the ideas of forgiveness, redemption, sin, and human inadequacy is something that rings true in my mind, and it is what keeps me as a Christian. While certainly I have had spiritual experiences, some deeper level of the very personal theology of Christianity is something unique to it. No religion has shown me the same level of simply being forgiven because you ask for it, instead relying on trying to be a better person to earn acceptance of some kind. Additionally, Atheism would require that I act like I don't need forgiveness, that I accept the flaws of humans as natural and okay in a sense, which is something that conflicts with my personal views. Therefore, while I believe in science and rational thought, the very personal emotional attachment I have to the ideas of forgiveness and redemption makes me a believer.
I really like the idea of redemption and forgiveness. In stories, nothing makes me happier than when the bad guy turns good, or when someone comes to realize their mistakes and they try to make amends. The thing that bothers me about the Christian idea of forgiveness is that, because of original sin, you need to be forgiven just by existing, by being human. "Human inadequacy" is something that I believe in too, in that as a species and a group we have a long way to go, what with the fighting and the greed and nasty stuff. We can always get better. However, it seems like the only difference between you and I is, like you said, I believe that we have to work for goodness, work to make ourselves better. You are essentially the same as the atheist that "accepts the flaws of humans as natural," you just want to use supernatural "forgiveness" to make you feel better about them. What do you feel you need to be forgiven for? Why do you feel so bad about yourself? If you feel bad about something you did, don't do it in the future, and try to make amends. If you feel like you have to apologize to God for not being perfect, for just BEING, I think that is a screwed up way of thinking.
That's it! Christianity is both lazy (we don't have to be better, we just have to be sorry) and self-hating (humans suck and we have to be sorry because we are not perfect like God.) This is what bothers me about it. As an atheist, I recognize that I am not perfect, but my redemption should come from my actions toward others, and my kindness in the face of my human frailty.
I wanted to talk about this because the experiential part of organised religion is completely ignored and dismissed by atheist thinkers, speakers and writers. It's not the only part, but it is a big part that needs more attention.
I found a lot of you mentioned matches pretty well with what Sam Harris has been discussing and trying to mention to atheists these days.
I'm trying to watch this, but he is probably one of the most boring speakers I've ever heard and seen. It's like the opposite of a peak experience. It's like a trench experience. This kind of speaking, lecture or sermon is the reason people LEAVE the more boring churches like the Methodists and Catholics.
I really like the idea of redemption and forgiveness. In stories, nothing makes me happier than when the bad guy turns good, or when someone comes to realize their mistakes and they try to make amends. The thing that bothers me about the Christian idea of forgiveness is that, because of original sin, you need to be forgiven just by existing, by being human. "Human inadequacy" is something that I believe in too, in that as a species and a group we have a long way to go, what with the fighting and the greed and nasty stuff. We can always get better. However, it seems like the only difference between you and I is, like you said, I believe that we have to work for goodness, work to make ourselves better. You are essentially the same as the atheist that "accepts the flaws of humans as natural," you just want to use supernatural "forgiveness" to make you feel better about them. What do you feel you need to be forgiven for? Why do you feel so bad about yourself? If you feel bad about something you did, don't do it in the future, and try to make amends. If you feel like you have to apologize to God for not being perfect, for just BEING, I think that is a screwed up way of thinking.
That's it! Christianity is both lazy (we don't have to be better, we just have to be sorry) and self-hating (humans suck and we have to be sorry because we are not perfect like God.) This is what bothers me about it. As an atheist, I recognize that I am not perfect, but my redemption should come from my actions toward others, and my kindness in the face of my human frailty.
This. A thousand times, this.
You've stated several times you have a lot of personal issues and inadequacies that you struggle with in regards to your self-esteem. Do you possibly think because of your beliefs on having to ask for forgiveness/redemption from a higher being is a factor in why you can't get over your hang-ups? Is it possible that you think by getting a date with a girl is your own way of redemption from your self-esteem getting the better of you?
Since I believe in this lack of inherent human goodness
See, I think you have low self esteem. I think humans are neutral, just like anything in the natural world. As Carl Sagan wrote, we are a species "Capable of such beautiful dreams, and such horrible nightmares." The battle of good and evil is not fought between God and the Devil (although it works as a tidy metaphor for our duality), but in each human spirit, Jekyll and Hyde style.
You need to be more proud of what is good about yourself. Humans are wonderful and horrible, and if you just accept your humanity, I think you will have an easier time talking to girls and stuff.
Ro told me there was a religious debate and all I thought was "cripple fight."
I like this quote. It is also why I never debate with any religious person, unless it is on my own terms. And that means unless they have done as much reading as me, I ignore them.
In fact, just listen to the next Thursday special when I'm a guest for more on this topic...
I'm trying to watch this, but he is probably one of the most boring speakers I've ever heard and seen. It's like the opposite of a peak experience. It's like a trench experience. This kind of speaking, lecture or sermon is the reason people LEAVE the more boring churches like the Methodists and Catholics.
Fuuuuck.
Come on, New Atheists! Get a clue!
I suppose you're right, I doubt we'll ever see Dawkins 'whoop'.
I suppose your right, I doubt we'll ever see Dawkins'whoop'.
I saw Dawkins at a conference last weekend. He got a few laughs at the start, and then lots of yawns by the end. His talk was really good, but he got his point across so obviously and easily it became a bit redundant. Interesting, but more trivial over time. At the end, a polite applause. Then again, I was back at TAM London, as mentioned in the podcast episode, which was the same conference that made me want to share this message in the first place.
Christianity does say to try and be better. I believe we should try and be better. Simply put, I also believe we can't. Yeah, because of original sin, our very means of existing is contrary to what God wants. And it's not just that God is mean and doesn't want to be around sinners. The way I look at it, sin is a very real thing that is the antithesis of God. If God is, in some way, the embodiment of what he represents, pure goodness and all that, then sin is the opposite of God and what he represents. Therefore, he is really unable to be around sin. It's a simple matter that we as humans can't help it that we are broken, we can and should try to be better, but it's not our faults, God gave us free will, so it's ultimately not our fault that we are flawed. If we have choices, we are bound to make the wrong one again and again. If we can ask for simple forgiveness, then that ensures we aren't being punished for this. However, if someone is not truly sorry, they don't truly earn forgiveness. It goes both ways. God doesn't want to have to punish us because he willingly gave us the ability to damn ourselves. However, if we want to do these things, if we don't have a desire to work towards perfection, then we don't get forgiven. It's a two-sided system, it requires both sides to accept something, God and Jesus accepting that we can be forgiven, and us truly wanting forgiveness and redemption for our sins and working at it, despite the fact that working at it will never be 100% fruitful.
I agree, some Christians are lazy jerks who just take forgiveness as a catch-all for being able to solve their own inadequacies. However, if a person doesn't want to change, the Bible is pretty clear that they don't get forgiveness. I agree with you, Emily, that some people are just assholes, and that we should work to be better.
And honestly, yes, I do have a lot of inadequacies. And I do try to be better in the future. But I still have others. I still feel like a failure sometimes. That's a part of human life, yes, but I can't personally understand life being that way without some other side to it.
You need to be more proud of what is good about yourself. Humans are wonderful and horrible, and if you just accept your humanity, I think you will have an easier time talking to girls and stuff.
Pride of any kind is something very, very negative to me. Even though I know it can be positive, having anything more than fleeting happiness and joy over my accomplishments is something I tend not to do. While I do hold a few things very special, I don't tend to want to be proud of myself. This is a problem, and it is probably semi-related to my religion.
Also, I'll note I don't really have problems talking to girls, but problems with having girls view me as anything more than an adorable, geeky friend who they would never date because of his various issues. However, self-confidence would fix that problem as well, so you're still right.
Oh he was giving out some harsh punishment last night. Cat of nine tails is nothing. More like cat of a hundred noodles. Enough whipping to make the British Navy squeamish.
Oh he was giving out some harsh punishment last night. Cat of nine tails is nothing. More like cat of a hundred noodles. Enough whipping to make the British Navy squeamish.
I'm sure more than one of them didn't think of it as punishment. ;P
There is, actually. Believing in the idea of a higher power that provides forgiveness for a perceived lack of human goodness is an idea ascribed to religion. Some Atheists may believe in a lack of human goodness, but they have no way of dealing with that belief. They could forgive themselves, I suppose, but if they believe in some level of inherent human flaw, then they find themselves not really good enough to have forgiveness, and that still leaves how other people view them.
Since I believe in this lack of inherent human goodness, but I can't justify that with how we have all survived this long and still manage to do good things in the world, and I don't believe in a realistic biological imperative to do good (maybe to cooperate and form societies, but nothing much far beyond that), I have to look somewhere else to justify it, and religion is the thing that fits best.
I believe in an inherent over abundance of human goodness. In fact that is really all humans want to do, do good things. The only people I have ever met in my life that are what you could even remotely term evil are the extreme outliers of humanity.
By and large anyone that I have ever seen do something mean or "evil" did so with the best intentions. I do not believe that anyone really wants to hurt anyone else. They believe that what they are doing is good and right and just. And this applies to even the worst of us.
Parents pray over a child who is ill with cholera and don't take them to a doctor, this is barbaric to us, to me at least, however to them they are doing what they believe best for their child.
Some Muslims in Egypt (Iran, Afghanistan, etc) stone women to death because they are seen as defiling their purity by spending time with a man who is not family, or stoned to death because of the shame she brought to their family for having a child after her father raped her. They are honestly doing what they believe is best, not just for themselves but for their families and their community at large.
Hordes of Christians stormed Jerusalem to take back the holy land that belongs to their religion. The did so because it was just and right that the land of Christ stay in the hands of his followers.
America has waged war upon drugs(Alcohol) to prevent her people from succumbing to it's vile temptation. In doing so brought about situations like Juarez (Chicago) where the government there can not contain the violence.
Or invading Vietnam/Korea to prevent the spread of communism, a direct threat to the American way of life.
Hitler had millions murdered to protect his pure race and nation from contamination, to prevent the Jewish people from destroying his people. /godwin
These may have been evil things, but they did it with the greatest of goods at heart, with the best of intentions.
While writing this I do think I noticed one thing. All of these people, in fact every situation I can think of, whose good intentions begets evil believed in their rightness, their justness, was infallible.
zehaeva, I was just saying the same thing quite recently. There are really almost zero human beings who do a bad thing and believe that they are the bad guy. The only people who believe that what they are doing is bad, and do it anyway, are people with mental illness and other such issues.
The way I look at it, sin is a very real thing that is the antithesis of God.
Okay, if (like I have always thought) God is just "goodness in us" and sin is just our "badness level," it is more like a Ying and a Yang, balancing each other out. If "God is in each of us," how is God unable to be around sin?
That's a part of human life, yes, but I can't personally understand life being that way without some other side to it.
That's just it! There is another side to it! There are moments of pure happiness, moments of Joy.
God gave us free will, so it's ultimately not our fault that we are flawed.
Why doesn't he unflaw us? It's like "I made you bad, now say you're sorry."
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?â€Â
I was under the impression Emily watched only maybe did some quick sketches of the act. Because everybody knows how Rym and Scott are gay for each other.
Why is it that I have to believe in some superior being, to keep from screwing people over? I was brought up a Southern Baptist, and like Rym said, I always found church boring. But what they "taught" me in church didn't keep me from doing or not doing bad things. What kept me from screwing over people, was that I wouldn't want people doing that to me. If they only reason you do the right thing, is because you are afraid of going to hell. Then you just suck as a person.
That's it! Christianity is both lazy (we don't have to be better, we just have to be sorry) and self-hating (humans suck and we have to be sorry because we are not perfect like God.) This is what bothers me about it. As an atheist, I recognize that I am not perfect, but my redemption should come from my actions toward others, and my kindness in the face of my human frailty.
This has to be one of the best explanations of how I feel about Christianity, thanks.
The next Luke segment involves history and the complete ahistoricity of the events described in the Christian bible. The Documentary Hypothesis on its origins is pretty convincing.
I enjoyed some of the comments in the podcast about peak experiences and how they relate to change.
In one of the essays in The Price of the Ticket, James Baldwin talks about finding salvation in the crowd. His criticism is that it is often brief and that the salvation of the individual in the crowd doesn't necessarily mean that the individual will leave the crowd a saved individual.
When Luke was talking about a minister praying for a person and looking for a response, I was reminded of that passage in Baldwin.
I can interpret Baldwin's use of the term 'salvation' as 'change.' In my life, I've found that change is a rare thing, and it often happens because of necessity. I change because I have no choice. Change or die. When I was growing up in church, there were a lot of these fabricated moments where I really felt I found change and salvation as part of a crowd. I'm not sure if any of that ever stuck with me, probably because somewhere deep down I had a feeling that it was a game.
Some of my favorite stories come from the legends of King Arthur. Perhaps because I like the Knights and armor. But in Sir Thomas Malory's version Morte d'Arthur, there's the best line ever. The narrator, commenting on whether or not Arthur will be once and future king (basically if he will return in the future from beyond the grave to rule once and for all) he says this: "Yet I wol nat sey that hit shall be so, but rather I wolde sey: here in thys worlde he chaunged hys lyffe." It's the peak of the story, a greater moment in the narration, in my opinion, than any of the merits of Arthur while he was alive.
I don't have the time right now to relate the concept of change with the concept of peak experience. But I did just want to say that appreciated the podcast and felt it was well done. Opening the religion box can be pretty challenging, and I'm glad to have heard a mature, robust conversation.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?â€Â
Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
A thousand times this.
Just take one second to stop and think logically. Throw everything you were taught in Church or by your parents out the window, and just think about this from a neutral standpoint. Forget about the bible, sin, and everything else. Now, with your totally neutral self, think seriously about God. Read the quote above, listen to the podcast, watch some videos, but stop coming at everything you're reading from the Christian (or any other religion's) standpoint. You might be surprised.
Comments
I wanted to talk about this because the experiential part of organised religion is completely ignored and dismissed by atheist thinkers, speakers and writers. It's not the only part, but it is a big part that needs more attention.
That's it! Christianity is both lazy (we don't have to be better, we just have to be sorry) and self-hating (humans suck and we have to be sorry because we are not perfect like God.) This is what bothers me about it. As an atheist, I recognize that I am not perfect, but my redemption should come from my actions toward others, and my kindness in the face of my human frailty.
Fuuuuck.
Come on, New Atheists! Get a clue!
You've stated several times you have a lot of personal issues and inadequacies that you struggle with in regards to your self-esteem. Do you possibly think because of your beliefs on having to ask for forgiveness/redemption from a higher being is a factor in why you can't get over your hang-ups? Is it possible that you think by getting a date with a girl is your own way of redemption from your self-esteem getting the better of you?
I could just be talking crap, but only wondering.
You need to be more proud of what is good about yourself. Humans are wonderful and horrible, and if you just accept your humanity, I think you will have an easier time talking to girls and stuff.
In fact, just listen to the next Thursday special when I'm a guest for more on this topic...
I agree, some Christians are lazy jerks who just take forgiveness as a catch-all for being able to solve their own inadequacies. However, if a person doesn't want to change, the Bible is pretty clear that they don't get forgiveness. I agree with you, Emily, that some people are just assholes, and that we should work to be better.
And honestly, yes, I do have a lot of inadequacies. And I do try to be better in the future. But I still have others. I still feel like a failure sometimes. That's a part of human life, yes, but I can't personally understand life being that way without some other side to it. Pride of any kind is something very, very negative to me. Even though I know it can be positive, having anything more than fleeting happiness and joy over my accomplishments is something I tend not to do. While I do hold a few things very special, I don't tend to want to be proud of myself. This is a problem, and it is probably semi-related to my religion.
Also, I'll note I don't really have problems talking to girls, but problems with having girls view me as anything more than an adorable, geeky friend who they would never date because of his various issues. However, self-confidence would fix that problem as well, so you're still right.
Neither has the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
By and large anyone that I have ever seen do something mean or "evil" did so with the best intentions. I do not believe that anyone really wants to hurt anyone else. They believe that what they are doing is good and right and just. And this applies to even the worst of us.
Parents pray over a child who is ill with cholera and don't take them to a doctor, this is barbaric to us, to me at least, however to them they are doing what they believe best for their child.
Some Muslims in Egypt (Iran, Afghanistan, etc) stone women to death because they are seen as defiling their purity by spending time with a man who is not family, or stoned to death because of the shame she brought to their family for having a child after her father raped her. They are honestly doing what they believe is best, not just for themselves but for their families and their community at large.
Hordes of Christians stormed Jerusalem to take back the holy land that belongs to their religion. The did so because it was just and right that the land of Christ stay in the hands of his followers.
America has waged war upon drugs(Alcohol) to prevent her people from succumbing to it's vile temptation. In doing so brought about situations like Juarez (Chicago) where the government there can not contain the violence.
Or invading Vietnam/Korea to prevent the spread of communism, a direct threat to the American way of life.
Hitler had millions murdered to protect his pure race and nation from contamination, to prevent the Jewish people from destroying his people.
/godwin
These may have been evil things, but they did it with the greatest of goods at heart, with the best of intentions.
While writing this I do think I noticed one thing. All of these people, in fact every situation I can think of, whose good intentions begets evil believed in their rightness, their justness, was infallible.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?â€Â
Epicurus – Greek philosopher, BC 341-270
In one of the essays in The Price of the Ticket, James Baldwin talks about finding salvation in the crowd. His criticism is that it is often brief and that the salvation of the individual in the crowd doesn't necessarily mean that the individual will leave the crowd a saved individual.
When Luke was talking about a minister praying for a person and looking for a response, I was reminded of that passage in Baldwin.
I can interpret Baldwin's use of the term 'salvation' as 'change.' In my life, I've found that change is a rare thing, and it often happens because of necessity. I change because I have no choice. Change or die. When I was growing up in church, there were a lot of these fabricated moments where I really felt I found change and salvation as part of a crowd. I'm not sure if any of that ever stuck with me, probably because somewhere deep down I had a feeling that it was a game.
Some of my favorite stories come from the legends of King Arthur. Perhaps because I like the Knights and armor. But in Sir Thomas Malory's version Morte d'Arthur, there's the best line ever. The narrator, commenting on whether or not Arthur will be once and future king (basically if he will return in the future from beyond the grave to rule once and for all) he says this: "Yet I wol nat sey that hit shall be so, but rather I wolde sey: here in thys worlde he chaunged hys lyffe." It's the peak of the story, a greater moment in the narration, in my opinion, than any of the merits of Arthur while he was alive.
I don't have the time right now to relate the concept of change with the concept of peak experience. But I did just want to say that appreciated the podcast and felt it was well done. Opening the religion box can be pretty challenging, and I'm glad to have heard a mature, robust conversation.
Just take one second to stop and think logically. Throw everything you were taught in Church or by your parents out the window, and just think about this from a neutral standpoint. Forget about the bible, sin, and everything else. Now, with your totally neutral self, think seriously about God. Read the quote above, listen to the podcast, watch some videos, but stop coming at everything you're reading from the Christian (or any other religion's) standpoint. You might be surprised.
Depends on whether you interpret it as "in order to watch" or "in order to participate".