• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Why is it that Christians are so quick to judge Athiest/Agnostic individuals?

"You can either agree with me, or you can be wrong! "


This is the mantra of the vast majority of humankind.
 
Original sin is a very interesting concept. It wouldn't even make it on the radar if there wasn't something there. I feel like I'm dealing with it in my life. I was born and did nothing wrong and yet I've had to pay the price for what my father and mother did to me. Not to mention my genetics which I didn't create. I was just stuck with it and for sure it's made me pay a price for being alive. I hate the idea of it but there it is anyway.
 
I'm not a Christian, but atheists have an amazing ability to misunderstand the concept of the word "metaphor". Heaven is not the sky, and of course you would be an atheist if you think that God means there is a "man" in the sky. Looking at it from a buddhist perspective, all religions are a path to God, atheists somehow got lost in their interpretations of what it means to be a believer or even what mythologies are. It's an understanding and an attitude towards life.
 
I used to find myself greatly annoyed by atheists. Then I started finding atheists, like Sam Harris, to be great allies. I still consider myself spiritual, and in ways religious (one can also have spirituality without belief in a God like what many of faith have).

I think a lot of it is not speaking the same language, or meaning the same thing with words as what people may get...I have a friend who is vehemently against the idea of God as it has been corrupted in ways by Christians. I try to open him up to it, assigning "God" as a kind of suitcase term for what some call "Tao", or physics... And orders/power of what is, and isn't.
 
I can't find much agreement with atheists or the religious ultimately. Both seem to think they know something that imo they cannot.
 
What 23 said:
I think a lot of it is not speaking the same language, or meaning the same thing with words as what people may get...I have a friend who is vehemently against the idea of God as it has been corrupted in ways by Christians. I try to open him up to it, assigning "God" as a kind of suitcase term for what some call "Tao", or physics... And orders/power of what is, and isn't.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but what's the point of calling things like the physics god? I don't doubt that this will cause translation and semantic issues. Perhaps its best to use words according to the meanings they haev rather than what we would have them mean.

I hadn't heard of Sam Harris before. Would you recommend any particular works by him? I admit, I was turned off when I saw him associate with Dawkins who I find unutterably tedious. But, I'm always interested in well presented arguments.
 
^That's exactly how I feel like. (Edit: Didn't refresh the page, this was aimed at Cosmic Trigger)

Memnoth said:
I'm not a Christian, but atheists have an amazing ability to misunderstand the concept of the word "metaphor". Heaven is not the sky, and of course you would be an atheist if you think that God means there is a "man" in the sky.
Click to expand...
You're right that this often seems to be the case and can be somewhat annoying. On the other hand I think religious people that say you have understand it as a metaphor are ignoring the fact that for the longest part of history these so called metaphors were in fact taken literally. I think it is a perfectly valid criticism that religion has only acknowledged the metaphorical nature of it's claims when science came along and forced it to do so, and in that sense the metaphorical angle could be seen as just the last straw that religion is grasping at.

Living in europe, I can't remember ever being judged by christians for being an agnostic. I leave them be for the most part too ;).
 
The experience of God has to be a precursor to the language and communication exchange, not the other way around. God is a personal God just as much as a universal God. People who have not connected with their personal God are never going to find that connection through these semantic discussions, where meaning is sought and constantly debated. You can't see the universal God, the God-in-Everything, unless you connect with God as individuated within you. Even this is a false dichotomy... they are one thing, but for the sake of discussion.

On the other hand, people who have connected to their personal God, can talk about themselves, even across language barriers, because the underlying connection is trusted and understood. I know what you're talking about and you know what I'm talking about because you and I are one.

I highly recommend people do a silent retreat in nature at least once in their lifetime. Go to a lodge or go camping, five days minimum, longer is better. Don't go for recreation. Go with the intention of connecting. Don't say a word, don't bring books, just be. My strong experience and understanding is that everyone has experienced God, no matter who they are or their creed. Not everyone talks about it. Not everyone can talk about it. Not everyone even identifies it as "God" because "God" is a word with many associations. They may call it any number of other things, or call it nothing. It doesn't require a word to be valid. The fact is, when you begin to see everything as part of you, and you as part of it, you'll see that God dwells in you, as you. There are no separations.

My point is... we are putting the cart ahead of the horse when we talk about proofs. Everyone has an individuated, personalized process with "God". It's happening right now. Forget the politics, the religion, the witless prattle... just go into nature and shut your mouth. More importantly, shut your monkey mind. Just be. That is "God", or whatever you choose to call it. It's there, it's all-permeating. It requires you to do nothing to get it. It is pure presence and you can relate to it, as it.

That's why these talks about proofs are so challenging. If you want proof then just say and do nothing.
 
God is a personal God just as much as a universal God.
Click to expand...

I know this will go nowhere because religion discussions like politics do that but I see no way you can make such a definitive statement. As to silent retreats I've done scores of them in true wilderness for up to two weeks at a time with or without doing heroic doses of psychedelics. At no time have I ever made contact with a personal God or do I believe I can know what lies beyond my personal and physical makeup. I think you have even stated something similar in another thread although I could be mistaken on that.

Just because you have personal beliefs or even experiences does not make them real or true. Same for me.

Actually I found it. Here's what you said. I don't believe the human mind can ever grasp the grand design. It's not meant to. That's why I look forward to death, in a way, because I won't be in this limited skin anymore.
 
Cosmic Trigger said:
Just because you have personal beliefs or even experiences does not make them real or true. Same for me.
Click to expand...

Foreigner said:
My strong experience and understanding is that everyone has experienced God, no matter who they are or their creed. Not everyone talks about it. Not everyone can talk about it. Not everyone even identifies it as "God" because "God" is a word with many associations. They may call it any number of other things, or call it nothing. It doesn't require a word to be valid.
Click to expand...

...........
 
swilow said:
I get what you are saying, but what's the point of calling things like the physics god? I don't doubt that this will cause translation and semantic issues. Perhaps its best to use words according to the meanings they haev rather than what we would have them mean.

I hadn't heard of Sam Harris before. Would you recommend any particular works by him? I admit, I was turned off when I saw him associate with Dawkins who I find unutterably tedious. But, I'm always interested in well presented arguments.
Click to expand...


Harris and Christopher Hitchens were my introduction into atheism.

However I doubt you would find Sam's work readable. You'll find much simplicity and overall the concepts he discusses you are already well aware of.

The debates are good though, he is a very smart person.
 
I think almost every grouping of people gets judged by its most loud mouthed, hyper-expressive top 1 or 2 percent a lot of times. Most fitness enthusiasts aren't proselytizing that everybody adopt their exercise routine, diet, and allied philosophy. But there is that one or two percent. And they aren't representative of the vast majority of people enthused about fitness.

I'm not going entirely off the rails, not yet anyways. When I talk about atheists or Christians, I need to make sure I'm not taking the most vocal and extreme representatives as average representatives.

Extremists care a lot more, engage a lot more, are more visible, but they are not representing the majority. In most cases they are mis-representing the majority.
 
I believe it's embedded so deeply in their core values and personality from being raised as a Christian, so much that it's almost an instinct to fear the absence of god or potentially look down upon those that have different opinions on god/spirituality.
 
Anything is. You're taught to eat 3 meals a day do keep your body alive and running, but you can live on one a day.

Maybe not for too long, depends on other variables.

What if someone stormed into your house and told you that you can only eat one meal a day and it has to consist of foods you do not like. It would go against your core values and you'd lash out, right? I would.

Don't fuck with my food.

It's how we are brought up, you kno? A starving east african child may accept the change from only eating one meal every two days to three meals a day if you told him he had to. That is because he hasn't had it cushy.

As a former Christian, even though I was a child, I would feel cushy because I "knew" Jesus was guarding me. I wasn't happy when I let atheism ideas or anything else in my life.

I did change though.
 
swilow said:
I hadn't heard of Sam Harris before. Would you recommend any particular works by him? I admit, I was turned off when I saw him associate with Dawkins who I find unutterably tedious. But, I'm always interested in well presented arguments.
Click to expand...

A bit off-topic, but I'm surprised to hear this from you. I don't know about Harris much, but Dawkins in my opinion is a very influential figure in the argument of science (more precisely the theory evolution) vs. religious non-sense. I really respect his work. Especially the Selfish Gene, which gave me a new perspective on the theory of evolution - I hadn't thought of the mechanisms of it in that way before.
 
belligerent drunk said:
A bit off-topic, but I'm surprised to hear this from you. I don't know about Harris much, but Dawkins in my opinion is a very influential figure in the argument of science (more precisely the theory evolution) vs. religious non-sense. I really respect his work. Especially the Selfish Gene, which gave me a new perspective on the theory of evolution - I hadn't thought of the mechanisms of it in that way before.
Click to expand...

I read 'The God Delusion' and found it very interesting; it has proven to be very influential to my line of thinking; at least in part. Definitely a scientist worthy of respect but I find much of his communication to be sort of stale and uninteresting. I responded to the idea in 'The Selfish Gene', but I found it quite impenetrable, mainly because of his writing style. I sometimes feel he doesn't convey his idea's all that well. Perhaps the fault is mine, but when I say tedious, I refer solely to his personal affect; he seems a bit pompous and (for me) buries his good idea's in a lot of hot air.

I find the militancy of his atheism a bit much too. It seems a touch to irate and indignant and I don't think he is a good representative of the cause at all. :\ As a scientist and theorist, I hold him in great esteem.
 
Last edited:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. I find his style quite balanced and modest, while he brings up good points in debates and so on. Of course, there are things I may disagree with that he does/says, but overall I quite like him not only as a scientist, but as a movement figure.
 
He seemed a bit harsh, or maybe that is not the word I would use. Rather, extreme?

Either way Dawkins is still a good example of what progressive anti theism should be.
 
When you compare him to somebody like Christopher Hitchens, I think Dawkins is rather mild and tame, and scientific. I like both, shame Hitchens passed away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top