Eyer, et al, the Necessity of Replacing God…

[amicus]

I've read your effort and a few parts even three times now; every word of Rand's you offer here I can't even count how many times I've pondered before (to my knowledge, I have read everything Rand has authored at least once - excluding her individual newsletters, although I have read many of them as they've been amended into other publications).

I do sincerely appreciate your effort, amicus - thank you.

I cannot offer you the open mind you ask for; indeed, if you recall, Ms. Rand opposes the thought of open mindedness herself...leaving one's mind open is like leaving the lid to the trash can open...

I believe Ms. Rand is incorrect re: a higher power than ourselves. And I believe she is as incorrect re: life evolving within the womb.

I do not share your view that accepting Christ as Lord and Savior is in any way connected with the political sacrifice of oneself to the collective; Christ made the sacrifice for me; all I must do is accept it as the gift of God He is. The relationship Christ makes possible is purely spiritual, it has nothing to do with the political things of this world.

My "poking" of you in this regard is your incessant insistence that anyone who believes in God is no different than a slave to the collective. I understand you believe that, but I would hope you understand I don't and that so many of the creators of this nations' most liberating founding political thoughts and documents believed in a Creator, too. If what you and Rand claim is true, how could men both you and Rand salute as heroes of individual liberty be anything but the slaves of the collective you both insist their belief in God automatically sentences them to?

A declarer of independence cannot be a socialist, too, can he?

~~~

I am not without my disagreements with Rand, nor do I reject some of the Ten Commandments out of hand. I do regret that my association of Collectivism and Christianity rubs a sore spot with you, I expected as much.

There being no evidence pointing to the existence of a supreme being, a deity, I am rationally compelled to conclude that none exists. Perhaps I did a poor job of calling upon science as an introduction, but the intent was to illustrate how the science of man has slowly but irrefutably destroyed the foundation of the Christian Religion.

I think even you observe the failure of Religion to provide an universal code of conduct as church after church falls by the wayside into corruption and contradiction. I do understand the faith involved, that one with such faith does not question the origin of that faith, and I respect that position, although I do not admire it.

I will not relate my personal relationship with religion and how I turned away from it, but it involved betrayal by the church and the commercialism, not just of one, but many, as I sought understanding.

I do not have and do not wish to have Jesus Christ as my personal savior. I do see the social necessity of communal worship to maintain order within a community, and please understand that being a writer from an early age, I am, as all serious writers are, one who questions everything.

I do seriously think that, to survive, mankind must move beyond the recipe's of religion into a realm of conscious, rational thought as it pertains to the ethics and morals of our very fast moving world.

We are not just on the verge, but beyond the point where ethical and moral judgments about such things as genetically modified foods, human cloning, organ transplants and a thousand other opportunities provided by science are in dire need of an ethical and moral system to give us guidance.

I offer Rand, not because I am a Randroid, but because her works offer the tools by which one can make moral judgments outside faith and belief.

When the fruition of a 'boutique baby', one created in a petri dish, occurs, where will you turn to judge the morality of such an event?

It was not lightly that I addressed this subject; many who hold similar views on individual freedom and market mechanics, are faith based as you are and I do not wish to alienate those few that share my concepts.

I think both you and I loathe the philosophy that allows one to sacrifice one's individual existence to the collective for the greater good of society. I somehow think you understand how I see that same sacrifice to a concept, a God, that I can not rationally accept, is an equal submission to a greater power than the individual.

For the past semester, I have walked alongside my youngest daughter as she studied the history of Palestine and the British Balfour Declaration that eventually created a Jewish homeland. She was originally inflamed with the hard hand of the British and had little sympathy for the Zionists. It has been a learning experience for both as we researched and discovered the long and torturous history of the Ottoman Empire and the middle east conflicts.

I add that to illustrate that I am not expressing my thoughts to convert anyone, or even to change minds, only to learn and continue my search for truth in all disciplines.

I am convinced there is no God and thus no moral commandments carved in stone. Therefore, the necessity of seeking the truth of a rational and consistent system of human morality, seems to me an important task and I would like to share my journey of discovery.

amicus

 

[KingOrfeo]

I postulate that man gathers together when danger threatens and gains sustenance from others and that in extremism, will call out in prayer to any power greater than himself. I see that as an entirely natural event.

It is.

What is natural is not necessarily admirable.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Jefferson authored and proposed a bill once while a Virginia legislator that would not penalize a prisoner for trying to escape if, in the process of that attempt, he harmed no other...

...TJ's logic was that a man's nature to be free was inherent and, thus, should not be held against him.

That is some of the most natural reasoning I've ever known...

...the bill was not enacted into law.

A perfect illustration of the limitations of "natural reasoning."

 

[KingOrfeo]

Just a thought:

When the importance of expressing one's belief system publically, becomes just as important as quietly living that belief system, it will begin to 'look' exactly like religion, even if it is a non-religious belief system.

"Look"? Many purportedly non-religious belief-systems -- Communism, Nazism, Objectivism -- are religions by any reasonable definition.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

"Look"? Many purportedly non-religious belief-systems -- Communism, Nazism, Objectivism -- are religions by any reasonable definition.

If 'God' is the name you give your moral conscience, great and more power to you. If 'God' is the name you give your moral superiority, we're going to have a problem.

 

[amicus]

KingOrfeo:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
I postulate that man gathers together when danger threatens and gains sustenance from others and that in extremism, will call out in prayer to any power greater than himself. I see that as an entirely natural event.

~~~

It is.

What is natural is not necessarily admirable.

~~~

Well, that is short , but what the hell does it mean?

My point was that a man, men, in extremis, will call out for help and I determined that was a natural act.

Wherein did I imply that all natural acts are or are not admirable?

So...just what do you mean to say?

amicus

 

[eyer]

KingOrfeo:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
I postulate that man gathers together when danger threatens and gains sustenance from others and that in extremism, will call out in prayer to any power greater than himself. I see that as an entirely natural event.

~~~



~~~

Well, that is short , but what the hell does it mean?

My point was that a man, men, in extremis, will call out for help and I determined that was a natural act.

Wherein did I imply that all natural acts are or are not admirable?

So...just what do you mean to say?

amicus

[raises hand]

Answer: King0 simply has the need to say something, not actually mean anything by doing so.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Well, that is short , but what the hell does it mean?

Merely that it is essentially important, when discussing the subject of faith, to begin with acknowledging that faith is not admirable. It is important because the contrary assumption is so widespread and little examined in our culture. "I wish I had faith like he does!" "I don't agree with their beliefs, but ya gotta admire their faith!" Why?! All faith is a form of wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is not always wrong, but it is always suspect, and it is never admirable, and you don't need to be a philosopher to understand why.

 

[ecclectic]

Merely that it is essentially important, when discussing the subject of faith, to begin with acknowledging that faith is not admirable. It is important because the contrary assumption is so widespread and little examined in our culture. "I wish I had faith like he does!" "I don't agree with their beliefs, but ya gotta admire their faith!" Why?! All faith is a form of wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is not always wrong, but it is always suspect, and it is never admirable, and you don't need to be a philosopher to understand why.

Epistle to the Hebrews (11:1) as "'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".

That's how Christians define faith. It's conviction, not just wishful thinking.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Epistle to the Hebrews (11:1) as "'the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen".

That's how Christians define faith. It's conviction, not just wishful thinking.

No, it isn't. The distinction is nonsense.

 

[KingOrfeo]

In Neal Stephenson's SF novel Anathem, the avout (a global body of philosophers, mathematicians and scientists living under monastic conditions and discipline -- the backstory is millennia-long) of the planet Arbre have a story about how, when the whole philosophical-intellectual project started on their world, in an ancient civilization resembling Greece, there was a sort of temple-school where philosophers would do their thing in the big courtyard, open to all. And a time came when the courtyard was full of numerologists and diviners and such (seems like philosophical activity of a kind if you look at it sideways and are new to the concepts, you know how that goes). So one day, one proto-avout named Diax lost his temper and drove all the charlatans out with a garden rake.

From this story was derived the maxim of "Diax' Rake": "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true."

That's the best way to look at faith.

 

[amicus]

Merely that it is essentially important, when discussing the subject of faith, to begin with acknowledging that faith is not admirable. It is important because the contrary assumption is so widespread and little examined in our culture. "I wish I had faith like he does!" "I don't agree with their beliefs, but ya gotta admire their faith!" Why?! All faith is a form of wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is not always wrong, but it is always suspect, and it is never admirable, and you don't need to be a philosopher to understand why.

~~~

Within the confines of your limited and jaded thinking, I find no value whatsoever in your thoughts.

It would take another lengthy essay to explain human spirituality to you and the words we use to describe it; faith and belief, but the conclusion of my essay would be that spirituality is essential for the psychologically healthy human being.

I think it was Harrison Ford in the film, "Patriot Games", when asked to defend the concept of absolute love, replied, "My love for my daughter and her love for me; absolute and unconditional."

I once had a professor at the University of Maryland, in a 600 level abnormal psyche class, throw a book at me all the way across a classroom. He had said, and I paraphrase, "One should never invest the amount of emotion into a person or a belief, that the loss of it would bring pain and suffering..."

At the time, I was very much in love with my wife, my high school sweetheart, so I told him he was full of shit and that committing oneself totally to the love of a person or a concept was what made us human.

There is much, much more to the concepts of human spirituality, faith and belief, than your small world contains. Read, listen and learn.

Amicus Veritas (no rose for you)

 

[KingOrfeo]

It would take another lengthy essay to explain human spirituality to you and the words we use to describe it; faith and belief . . .

Faith and spirituality is two different things. Very different.

 

[The_Trouvere]

I write this in my ‘cups’ as it allows my hubris free reign, otherwise, I might be sociable and politically correct…ah, not much chance of that…but…

Please acknowledge that you have been ‘poking’ me to provide an acceptable defense of my atheism as it applies to the essential qualities of mankind that we both agree are values and virtues...

Another pretentious waste of time and computer memory.

 

[amicus]

Faith and spirituality is two different things. Very different.

~~~

You might consider the etymology of words and epistemology, the hierarchy of concepts. Spirituality is the wider concept, faith and belief are sub concepts. All are metaphysical abstractions, as you cannot be touchy feely with them, you have to use your mind.

amicus

 

[amicus]

I had not intended to revisit this Thread....I just finished watching a film I have seen many times before and thought to author a new Thread, searched to find if I had done so before, I think I have, but, under the title, "Inn of the Sixth Happiness", only this Thread popped up.

The film, a 1958 production, features Ingrid Bergman and Curt Jurgens and is based on a true story of Gladys Aylward....

The Inn of the Sixth Happiness is a 1958 American 20th Century Fox film based on the true story of Gladys Aylward, a tenacious British maid, who became a missionary in China during the tumultuous years leading up to World War II.

http://www.trivia-library.com/b/hol...grid-bergman-and-roberto-rosselini-part-1.htm

The film was aired on TCM, Turner Classic Movies, and the narrator just happened to mention that Ingrid Bergman, married with three children, was having an affair with a director....see above for details...

The film involves the faith of a Missionary and with a small stretch of the imagination, can be related to this Thread. I would recommend a viewing of the film if you have not seen it, as an expression of faith and spirituality in difficult times.

I am also claiming a degree of serendipity, as this election season, with faith based Republican Christians taking the brunt of criticism for their religions and Obama skating free, as the media will not touch upon his religious beliefs or lack of them, as to how much of an issue faith and religiosity will play as 2012 draws near and the heat level rises.

So be it...

amicus

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I had not intended to revisit this Thread....I just finished watching a film I have seen many times before and thought to author a new Thread, searched to find if I had done so before, I think I have, but, under the title, "Inn of the Sixth Happiness", only this Thread popped up.

The film, a 1958 production, features Ingrid Bergman and Curt Jurgens and is based on a true story of Gladys Aylward....



http://www.trivia-library.com/b/hol...grid-bergman-and-roberto-rosselini-part-1.htm

The film was aired on TCM, Turner Classic Movies, and the narrator just happened to mention that Ingrid Bergman, married with three children, was having an affair with a director....see above for details...

The film involves the faith of a Missionary and with a small stretch of the imagination, can be related to this Thread. I would recommend a viewing of the film if you have not seen it, as an expression of faith and spirituality in difficult times.

I am also claiming a degree of serendipity, as this election season, with faith based Republican Christians taking the brunt of criticism for their religions and Obama skating free, as the media will not touch upon his religious beliefs or lack of them, as to how much of an issue faith and religiosity will play as 2012 draws near and the heat level rises.

So be it...

amicus

This must be what the floor of the computer keyboard factory looks like after a plant explosion.

 

[amicus]

Not necessarily, but I did type the entire thing with me toes, just to see ifin ah could.



ami

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I'm not your friend.

 

[amicus]

I'm not your friend.

~~~

Not sure how that relates to anything....but the original Thread was about replacing God....are you religious, an atheist, what?

???

amicus

 

[Byron In Exile]

"Eyer, et al, the Necessity of Replacing God…"

When you abbreviate, you really ought to use a period, else spell the thing out.

It's "et al." or "et alia"

If you come to this Thread with an open mind and a desire to learn, there is much to gain.

Amicus Veritas

Lol...!

"Verus" or "Veritatis," dummy. Pick one.

 

[Byron In Exile]

This must be what the floor of the computer keyboard factory looks like after a plant explosion.

 

[amicus]

When you abbreviate, you really ought to use a period, else spell the thing out.

It's "et al." or "et alia"

Lol...!

"Verus" or "Veritatis," dummy. Pick one.

~~~~

Poetic license allows me to write anything I choose in any style I choose, without being boxed in as so many academics seem to be wedded to tradition and form.

Like my words, 'Regressivism', not to be found in the dictionary, so I will create the word and laugh from my grave when it becomes part of the language a decade from now.

Would you possibly have anything to offer outside personal snarkiness, ya know, like the subject of the Thread?

I thought not.

Amicus Meritas Veritas (thas all wrong too)

 

[Byron In Exile]

~~~~

Poetic license allows me to write anything I choose in any style I choose, without being boxed in as so many academics seem to be wedded to tradition and form.

Me Byron. Me write like want. You respect writings or bring wrath of gods. English suck. Rules suck. Me write how want. You learn from me and great wisdom mine. Me not boxed in by grammar.

Like my words, 'Regressivism', not to be found in the dictionary, so I will create the word and laugh from my grave when it becomes part of the language a decade from now.

Would you possibly have anything to offer outside personal snarkiness, ya know, like the subject of the Thread?

I thought not.

Amicus Meritas Veritas (thas all wrong too)

We talk now. You learn.

 

[amicus]

Me Byron. Me write like want. You respect writings or bring wrath of gods. English suck. Rules suck. Me write how want. You learn from me and great wisdom mine. Me not boxed in by grammar.

We talk now. You learn.

~~~

There is no God.

Amicus