Atheists, do you hope you're right?

noguru

Well-known member
That's the idea (Ps. 33:21). :dizzy:

Yet you seem to ignore the Biblical reference I had included. Of course there is a perfectly valid symbiotic relationship between all concepts in the Bible, but I don't expect you to look at the entire Bible and reveal it all. Being accurate is not your style.
 

noguru

Well-known member
The same goes for how Christianity meets the nature of man and being. Anyway, don't let me keep you if your inclination is lighter.

If I were a therapist trying to help a distraught and discontented person, I would start them with the introspective side of Christianity. And once started (they do not have to resolve all negativity from the past immediately) I would put them on a diet of Buddhism. But they should never forget who brought them to that epiphany and catharsis. And always be grateful for the contentment that was given to them. I am not sure that reciting specific words as some sort of magical incantation is a real solution.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
If I were a therapist trying to help a distraught and discontented person, I would start them with the introspective side of Christianity. And once started (they do not have to resolve all negativity from the past immediately) I would put them on a diet of Buddhism. But they should never forget who brought them to that epiphany and catharsis. And always be grateful for the contentment that was given to them. I am not sure that reciting specific words as some sort of magical incantation is a real solution.
Reciting what words? I think I like the opening move, but then I'd consider Brother Lawrence and even a bit of Peck's Road. If they were up for it, or the sort inclined to sustained consideration I might be inclined to suggest Merton. But Lawrence to be sure. A quick, simple and profound approach to life within a larger context.
 

noguru

Well-known member
Reciting what words?

Creeds that are stringently attached to dogmatic views, because (even though lip service might be given) many people do not recognize the fallibility of man.

I think I like the opening move, but then I'd consider Brother Lawrence and even a bit of Peck's Road. If they were up for it, or the sort inclined to sustained consideration I might be inclined to suggest Merton. But Lawrence to be sure. A quick, simple and profound approach to life within a larger context.

I see Jesus and Buddha as preaching some of the same concepts to potential followers. But Jesus dwelt a little more on a Freudian resonance of recapitulating past errors and misconceptions. His offering of redemption is valuable for people who have difficulty forgiving themselves. Where Buddha was more Jungian in proposing that going over that might be helpful, but what really matters is how you are living right now.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Dogmatic creeds because they do not recognize the fallibility of man.
Would this qualify for you? "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Because it isn't the fallibility of man, but the transcendence of God that, to me, imbues that with a life altering meaning.

I see Jesus and Buddha as preaching some of the same concepts to potential followers. But Jesus dwelt more on a Freudian resonance of recapitulating past errors and misconceptions. Where Buddha was more Jungian in proposing that going over that might be helpful, but what really matters is how you are living right now.
I see Buddha as a very wise man struggling to make a contextual sense of being. I see Christ as God offering the context.

Always good to bump into you, Nog.
 

noguru

Well-known member
I see Buddha as a very wise man struggling to make a contextual sense of being.

It is the struggle that makes Buddhism become the chosen path. It is in reconciling the struggle that the "middle way" is achieved. And it is the "middle way" that leads to contentment through balance in all things.

I see Christ as God offering the context.

As much as a divine being might be helpful to some. I tend to see the importance being in a divine realm. Even Christians are seeking a divine realm, though they feel it must be through a divine being (and some think it is only in the afterlife). Buddhism only requires a divine realm, a divine being is optional.

Be that as it may, I think some people find it difficult to forgive themselves. And I think Jesus realized this. Hence he gave his path freely to others so that they may discard the bag of rocks they have been carrying and find enlightenment.
 
Last edited:

noguru

Well-known member
I would say that we live on an evolving natural world that doesn't need an explanation for why it isn't perfect, it's natural!

Oh dear, there goes my salvation then. :chew:

Some atheists are more humble than some Christians I have witnessed. Some Christians only use their belief in God as a way to feel superior to others. Which is why I kind of leaned towards the Calvinist view at one point. Calvinism in its true essence, though it may seem to make humans haughty, generally brings greater humility than Open Theism. Many Open Theists are quite taken with their choice to believe, and feel that they are superior to others that have not made that choice. Calvinists generally accept that it was not their doing, and hence they have the saying "There but for the grace of God go I" and sincerely believe that. Which makes them humble and empathetic to the "non elect". Since no man can really know who is "elected", only God knows that.
 
Last edited:

alwight

New member
Some atheists are more humble than some Christians I have witnessed. Some Christians only use their belief in God as a way to feel superior to others. Which is why I kind of leaned towards the Calvinist view at one point. Calvinism in its true essence, though it may seem to make humans haughty, generally brings greater humility than Open Theism. Many Open Theists are quite taken with their choice to believe, and feel that they are superior to others that have not made that choice. Calvinists generally accept that it was not their doing, and hence they have the saying "There but for the grace of God go I" and sincerely believe that. Which makes them humble and empathetic to the "non elect". Since no man can really know who is "elected", only God knows that.
While I do respect and value philosophy more generally it often seems to me that a great deal of pointless philosophical effort has been spent on fine-tuning the assorted versions of Christianity.
Esteemed academic theologians arguing about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" is the usual derogatory expression I believe?
Philosophy sometimes seems more about just having an "intelligent, worthy" open ended debate rather than actually getting anywhere useful and practical. What better than religion for doing that?
However imo the actual proof of the pudding is in the eating.
 

bybee

New member
While I do respect and value philosophy more generally it often seems to me that a great deal of pointless philosophical effort has been spent on fine-tuning the assorted versions of Christianity.
Esteemed academic theologians arguing about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" is the usual derogatory expression I believe?
Philosophy sometimes seems more about just having an "intelligent, worthy" open ended debate rather than actually getting anywhere useful and practical. What better than religion for doing that?
However imo the actual proof of the pudding is in the eating.

"The unexamined life is ... you know?
 

Hedshaker

New member
:yawn: He asks some important questions that frankly--must be answered (Ps 14:1).

Why is it that you completely ignore 99% of what I post and then pick out a single sentence? Surly you can see that that sentence should be taken in context of the points made. That makes you either dishonest or a Dunning Krugar style dunce. Or both maybe.

In my previous post I pointed out how Strobel's style of apologetics plays to Christian confirmation bias. Strobel's books are aimed at Christians not sceptics. He preaches to the choir and he is less than honest about it, so no, I don't accept that he asks important questions.

And I'm not the only one who thinks so.

But you can now ignore all that, drop in this smiley :yawn: post a sentence out of context, drop in a Bible verse and be on you way thinking you've made some ultimate gotcha! You're fooling no one.

You're not worth engaging..... :kookoo: :wave2:
 

noguru

Well-known member
While I do respect and value philosophy more generally it often seems to me that a great deal of pointless philosophical effort has been spent on fine-tuning the assorted versions of Christianity.
Esteemed academic theologians arguing about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" is the usual derogatory expression I believe?
Philosophy sometimes seems more about just having an "intelligent, worthy" open ended debate rather than actually getting anywhere useful and practical. What better than religion for doing that?
However imo the actual proof of the pudding is in the eating.

What part of life is actually "getting somewhere" in your opinion?

When the World is Running Down
 
Last edited:

noguru

Well-known member
Why is it that you completely ignore 99% of what I post and then pick out a single sentence? Surly you can see that that sentence should be taken in context of the points made. That makes you either dishonest or a Dunning Krugar style dunce. Or both maybe.

I am pretty sure snakebird is attempting to be clever with that strategy.

Some people spend so much time and effort trying to be clever in their avoidance of reality, that they end up making themselves fools.
 
Top