Introducing myself

[The Gentleman Atheist]

Greetings to all.

I do suppose that you are wondering about the reasons for my extended leave from this site. First I must apologize, but then I must explain my reasons for having been away.

I had been recently hearing of a new political movement in the breakaway colonies calling themselves the, "Tea Party." Thinking that this may have been a rising monarchist movement in the former colony, I felt obligated to visit them and their leaders in order to lend my advice and support.

Well. I have to take this moment to warn you that they have NOTHING TO DO WITH TEA AT ALL – or at least nothing to do with making tea time an enjoyable thing. It was really a rather horrid experience, and there were not any leaves proffered at all during a some hours-long "conversation" with the notably vapid egoist Greg Beck (the movement's self-appointed leader). I waited for the service to be brought, but I'm afraid to say that there was nothing. I have to say that if you are so unfortunate to be invited to one of these events, then do bring your own silver (and guard it!)

Glad to be chatting with you once again.

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

Oh goodness, I almost forgot to mention this. During my sojourn in the former colonies, I spent a short visit with some of your jewish friends in New York City. It is important to make a note of this as I was exploring the topic of our OP here, which we have sadly strayed far away from. I met a fellow there named Larry who later responded to me by post. I thought that it might be nice to share some of his thoughts with you, so I contacted him for permission to post it here. Instead, he was so kind as to offer to post the meat of the letter on his own "blog". The "blog" or "web log" is a new idea to me, and I hope to investigate further as it sounds very interesting. In any case, here is the link to Larry's post.

I do hope that you find this to be useful to our ends here.

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[Coralie]

Isn't it incredibly disappointing that there is no tea involved AT ALL? At least if there was SOME tea forming the basis of the whole thing, it would be a little more enjoyable. Having said that, I am not an American, so I suppose I should reserve judgement.

Welcome back to CF and to your thread. I hope you and your girl (fiancee? wife?) are well.

 

[Chesterton]

I am neither disputing it nor making an argument for the case. It is not something that I have thought about. What is your opinion on the matter?

I haven't thought about it at length, either. But you said you were offended by the saying about "no atheists in foxholes", and I wasn't exactly sure why. Maybe it's unimportant.

Greetings to all.

I do suppose that you are wondering about the reasons for my extended leave from this site. First I must apologize, but then I must explain my reasons for having been away.

I had been recently hearing of a new political movement in the breakaway colonies calling themselves the, "Tea Party." Thinking that this may have been a rising monarchist movement in the former colony, I felt obligated to visit them and their leaders in order to lend my advice and support.

Well. I have to take this moment to warn you that they have NOTHING TO DO WITH TEA AT ALL – or at least nothing to do with making tea time an enjoyable thing. It was really a rather horrid experience, and there were not any leaves proffered at all during a some hours-long "conversation" with the notably vapid egoist Greg Beck (the movement's self-appointed leader). I waited for the service to be brought, but I'm afraid to say that there was nothing. I have to say that if you are so unfortunate to be invited to one of these events, then do bring your own silver (and guard it!)

Glad to be chatting with you once again.

The Gentleman Atheist

Well the Tea Party name refers to something which once happened in Boston. But of course you wouldn't know about that; I suppose such topics are not much dealt with in British history lessons. Come to think of it, I hear they're not much dealt with in American history lessons either these days.

Oh goodness, I almost forgot to mention this. During my sojourn in the former colonies, I spent a short visit with some of your jewish friends in New York City. It is important to make a note of this as I was exploring the topic of our OP here, which we have sadly strayed far away from. I met a fellow there named Larry who later responded to me by post. I thought that it might be nice to share some of his thoughts with you, so I contacted him for permission to post it here. Instead, he was so kind as to offer to post the meat of the letter on his own "blog". The "blog" or "web log" is a new idea to me, and I hope to investigate further as it sounds very interesting. In any case, here is the link to Larry's post.

I do hope that you find this to be useful to our ends here.

The Gentleman Atheist

Nice post really. Larry might ought to be more careful though, not to overreach with a statement such as "But I have limits to the deference I am willing to give ideas that have been demonstrated faulty."

Just curious, did Larry write the several articles on the right-hand side of the page, or just the one you linked to?

I wasn't aware that New York Jews said "y'all". Delightful!

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

I haven't thought about it at length, either. But you said you were offended by the saying about "no atheists in foxholes", and I wasn't exactly sure why. Maybe it's unimportant.

Oh yes, Chesterton. Thank you. The meaning of the saying is fallacious, because it declares that all atheists under live fire will instantly become god-fearing religionists. Since I know several combat veterans who have held atheist viewpoints before, during, and after their combat experiences, I can vouch for the fallacy of the statement.

Just curious, did Larry write the several articles on the right-hand side of the page, or just the one you linked to?

I'm afraid that I can not say, dear sir. Larry is an approachable fellow though. Please allow this note to act as a letter of introduction. If you had a question for him, then I am sure he would be pleased to make your acquaintance.

 

[Chesterton]

Oh yes, Chesterton. Thank you. The meaning of the saying is fallacious, because it declares that all atheists under live fire will instantly become god-fearing religionists. Since I know several combat veterans who have held atheist viewpoints before, during, and after there combat experiences, a can vouch for the fallacy of the statement.

I was more curious as to why it's offensive rather than whether it's fallacious.

 

[Sir Wilshire]

I remember that I came to Christ when I was around 10 because I believed I needed forgiveness for sins, and it was my cousin who led me to Christ after we talked about it for an hour. However, I will now say that someone should come to Christ because it is true that people need forgiveness from God. I think it is true because Jesus rose from the dead. And I think there is plenty of evidence that shows that he did.

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

I was more curious as to why it's offensive rather than whether it's fallacious.

Ah Chesterton, I do respect you for your curiosity. To answer your question, suppose that I were to say to you that there are no christians in foxholes – which is an equally fallacious statement. Does this help to clarify?

We must engage in a polo match one day. Do you ride with a team?

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

I remember that I came to Christ when I was around 10 because I believed I needed forgiveness for sins, and it was my cousin who led me to Christ after we talked about it for an hour. However, I will now say that someone should come to Christ because it is true that people need forgiveness from God. I think it is true because Jesus rose from the dead. And I think there is plenty of evidence that shows that he did.

Oh wonderful good, Sir Wilshire. I am well pleased to meet a fellow here who has gained the accolade of HRH. I have to admit, I did not expect it, but in retrospect it little surprises me. It is well-earned, I am sure. One day I should be pleased for you to share the story of your knighthood with us.

At the end of your brief missive you do say that you, "think there is plenty of evidence that shows that [the galilean messiah] did [reanimate]." I am hoping that you will please share here the evidence that leads you to this belief.

I may be on the crux here – please do pardon the pun – of this whole christianity thing. I am hoping that your answer is the one that I believe it may be.

Hoping that you are all well.

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[Chesterton]

Ah Chesterton, I do respect you for your curiosity. To answer your question, suppose that I were to say to you that there are no christians in foxholes – which is an equally fallacious statement. Does this help to clarify?

I'm usually not offended by mere fallacy, and I wouldn't be offended by the above statement because I wouldn't know what it was intended to mean. I originally asked because you seemed to show that queer aspect of atheism we often notice - that idea of hating something not believed in. Everyone notices the anger of Hitchens and Dawkins towards the idea of God. It seems unique because I can't imagine anyone hating the idea of the lost city of Atlantis, or hating the idea of pink unicorns on a distant planet. I thought I detected notes of emotion and pride in your otherwise rational words - that somehow there was something unseemly about a human in danger seeking help from something greater than humanity, or more simply, that there is something unpleasant about thinking that humanity is not the highest thing there is.

We must engage in a polo match one day. Do you ride with a team?

The economic downturn on our side of the pond is dragging on a bit longer than expected. Alas and fearful alack, my pony is presently in the pawn shop.

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

I'm usually not offended by mere fallacy, and I wouldn't be offended by the above statement because I wouldn't know what it was intended to mean.

Oh no, my dear Chesterton. I am also not offended by the mere fallacy of the statement. It is the historical and literary contexts in which this false aphorism has been used that well establishes its offensive nature. I suppose that you are correct: merely reversing the statement does not aid in an hermetical understanding of its nature. Pity that. In any case, I believe that this clarifies the case.

Now, on a retrospective side note, I do find it interesting that thinking christians themselves do not take offense to this oft-quoted, little-considered phrase. Upon close inspection, it seems to declare all men in combat to be simple cowards; which is something that I assure you is not true – at least not all of the time.

I originally asked because you seemed to show that queer aspect of atheism we often notice - that idea of hating something not believed in. Everyone notices the anger of Hitchens and Dawkins towards the idea of God.…I thought I detected notes of emotion and pride in your otherwise rational words - that somehow there was something unseemly about a human in danger seeking help from something greater than humanity, or more simply, that there is something unpleasant about thinking that humanity is not the highest thing there is.

There is a terrible amount of meat to deal with here. Please be patient while the Gentleman Atheist retrieves his steak knife from his travel kit.

I suppose the first thing that should be stated is a gentle reminder that all atheists neither hate what they do not believe in; nor for that matter do they hate what others may believe in.

In my personal conversations with Professor Dawkins he has shown himself to be a rather genuine lover of human beings. His grave antipathy in regard to religion is seated in his rather justifiable fear that humans use religion to harm themselves and others. I will not go into the details as he covers these quite thoroughly in his own work.

Mr. Hitchens, however, is certainly angry about religion and the idea of gods, but I should note that he is angry about everything.

In specific regard to the unseemliness of soldiers communicating with gods while under fire, I would perhaps suggest that forming a closer relationship with their rifles might be a better idea instead.

The economic downturn on our side of the pond is dragging on a bit longer than expected. Alas and fearful alack, my pony is presently in the pawn shop.

Oh… dear. Things are rather bad over there, aren't they?

Until the next we speak, I shall be hoping that these pawn-brokers treat the equus chesteronia very well until the time that you may retrieve her.

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[Chesterton]

Oh no, my dear Chesterton. I am also not offended by the mere fallacy of the statement. It is the historical and literary contexts in which this false aphorism has been used that well establishes its offensive nature. I suppose that you are correct: merely reversing the statement does not aid in an hermetical understanding of its nature. Pity that. In any case, I believe that this clarifies the case.

Now, on a retrospective side note, I do find it interesting that thinking christians themselves do not take offense to this oft-quoted, little-considered phrase. Upon close inspection, it seems to declare all men in combat to be simple cowards; which is something that I assure you is not true – at least not all of the time.

Is a man in need of medical attention a coward because he goes to a doctor? Or a drowning man because he calls for someone to throw him a line? I suppose one could see it that way, but I think those types of actions are sensible and wise.

There is a terrible amount of meat to deal with here. Please be patient while the Gentleman Atheist retrieves his steak knife from his travel kit.

I suppose the first thing that should be stated is a gentle reminder that all atheists neither hate what they do not believe in; nor for that matter do they hate what others may believe in.

I'm sure that's true. I'm sure the militant atheists get more of our attention through media (and sell more books) just as the sillier Christians get more of our attention through media.

In my personal conversations with Professor Dawkins he has shown himself to be a rather genuine lover of human beings. His grave antipathy in regard to religion is seated in his rather justifiable fear that humans use religion to harm themselves and others. I will not go into the details as he covers these quite thoroughly in his own work.

A real scholar might write books comparing and contrasting the good of religion with the bad of religion. And if I set my hand to it I think I could pen a lengthy work on how the lack of religion might be used to harm others. I could look at Nietzsche's fondness for the slave state, and move on to Social Darwinism, the communist bloodbaths, and the contemporary Peter Singer who advocates infanticide. Stuff like that.

On the other hand, If I were a consistent and honest atheist, I wouldn't see much point in seeking to prevent we mere animals from harming each other anyway. That's how animals live and thrive.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Except we aren't mere animals, even if you consider it in an atheistic context. We are animals with rational capacities and faculties. Just because we share a nature with animals doesn't mean our "telos" is necessarily the same, to use Thomistic terms

 

[Chesterton]

Except we aren't mere animals, even if you consider it in an atheistic context. We are animals with rational capacities and faculties.

Well, different animals have different things.

Just because we share a nature with animals doesn't mean our "telos" is necessarily the same, to use Thomistic terms

Debatable whether there is telos at all, but yes, some of us do believe that:

YouTube - Special Purpose

 

[durangodawood]

... I could look at Nietzsche's fondness for the slave state....

Really? Where do I find this in his own words?
.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Well, different animals have different things.

How does this contradict or even lessen my point? I don't think I said we were completely superior to even our evolutionary cousins. I'm not anywhere near as strong as a chimp, orangutan or gorilla, but, I don't think any of them could write fiction in any sense as far as I'm aware. Differences in capacity don't imply differences in overall superiority, just particular superiority.

Debatable whether there is telos at all, but yes, some of us do believe that

In Thomistic terms again, from what I recall, there is a difference between overall/ultimate telos in the final end prophesied and spoken about so highly in Abrahamic religions and particular telos, that is, general goals we might have. But perhaps the Greek has a better term for the latter.

 

[Chesterton]

Really? Where do I find this in his own words?

He wanted the strong to rule the weak because that accords with nature:

[Anything which] is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant - not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power... 'Exploitation'... belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life. (Beyond Good and Evil)
　
"In this age of suffrage universel, [sic] i.e., when everyone may sit in judgement on everyone and everything, I feel impelled to re-establish order of rank .... Though it is true that the Greeks perished through slavery, it is even more certain that we shall perish from no longer having slavery.... What a comfort it is to think upon the serf of the Middle Ages, with the vigorous and delicate legal and moral relations that united him with his lord, in the narrowness so rich with sense of his limited existence"

"Slavery must not be abolished; it is necessity. We only need to see to it that the men emerge for whom one will work." (notes to The Will to Power 1888)
　
"Hatred, the mischievous delight in the misfortune of others, the lust to rob and dominate and whatever else is called evil belongs to the most amazing economy of the preservation of the species." (The Gay Science)

How does this contradict or even lessen my point? I don't think I said we were completely superior to even our evolutionary cousins. I'm not anywhere near as strong as a chimp, orangutan or gorilla, but, I don't think any of them could write fiction in any sense as far as I'm aware. Differences in capacity don't imply differences in overall superiority, just particular superiority.

Right, you didn't say we were superior. You just said we possess reason. Atheist biologists admit we possess reason but they still say we are mere apes.

In Thomistic terms again, from what I recall, there is a difference between overall/ultimate telos in the final end prophesied and spoken about so highly in Abrahamic religions and particular telos, that is, general goals we might have. But perhaps the Greek has a better term for the latter.

Sure, all animals can and do have particular goals.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Right, you didn't say we were superior. You just said we possess reason. Atheist biologists admit we possess reason but they still say we are mere apes.

Mere apes in the nominal sense of biological classification. We are primates, that doesn't imply we share all qualities and capacities of other primates. I don't see how someone saying we're mere apes implies that we have to behave like them or are even predisposed to do so. But I did start a topic of my own so this won't be terribly derailed.

Sure, all animals can and do have particular goals.

To use the Thomistic terms, particular and very sensitive faculty based goals: food, water, shelter in some sense, procreation, protecting group.

 

[Sir Wilshire]

At the end of your brief missive you do say that you, "think there is plenty of evidence that shows that [the galilean messiah] did [reanimate]." I am hoping that you will please share here the evidence that leads you to this belief.

I'll present the argument that comes from the cultural values of the people of the 1st century. It is one argument of several others I find persuasive. It can be found here. The more expanded and complete version of this argument can be found in Defending the Resurrection, pages 183-283.

I may be on the crux here – please do pardon the pun – of this whole christianity thing. I am hoping that your answer is the one that I believe it may be.

What did you believe my answer would be?

 

[Alive_Again]

Don't you take comfort when someone horribly evil beyond measure (like Hitler, Chairman Mao, Stalin) dies that there is accountability? If you don't, people just get away with horrible cruelties and that's it? What constrains you from just living after your own gratification? Don't you "intuitively" appreciate the finer qualities of human beings (however rarely expressed). Don't you think that came from somewhere?

<I am hoping that you may help me. I have sought for some time to understand what motivates a person to become a believer.
<"What things originally brought you to the christian faith?"
<Well, what people or events did originally bring you to the christian faith?

I grew up in a denominational church, but never made a committment with my own life. In my teenage years, I started reading the gospels and the Words of Jesus. They were very compelling. I could see that my church life was nothing like what the Bible spoke of, and that Jesus required more than my church was asking for (which seemed like a lot!). I could see though that Jesus had a plan for everyone's life and that if you could bring yourself to give yourself wholly to it, you would find fulfillment.

Years later I was reading the gospels again, and the Lord read my heart and I was born again.

Scripturally speaking, Jesus said that "No man comes to Me unless the Father draw him." So He chooses you, you don't choose Him. Having said that, if He draws you, you still have to say yes. If you find yourself drawn somehow to the experience, without any knowledge of why or how, it's a cinch that God is drawing you.

Hopefully you're wife is truly born again. There are many believers who go to church and have never given their life over to Jesus and become born again. Having had many experiences directly with God and knowing what's going to happen to those who don't receive Him, I couldn't bear the thought of someone I loved going to Hell. The reality is, that is the destination of everyone who fails to choose Jesus as their Lord.

There's a movie coming out on NDEs in the next week or two. It's compelling and a number of well known Christians who went to Heaven or Hell are on it. It might a secular movie, but their will be some good testimonies included.

People (now ministers) who've gone to Heaven have stated these things about Heaven:

Heaven:
There's a veil where any saved family members and friends will meet you when you pass over.
You'll have a youthful spirit body that's perfect and beautiful
The light of God is all over Heaven (no shadows)
The flowers all praise the Lord!
The furniture is "alive" and forms to fit around you in the most comfortable way
All roads lead to the throne of God
You can see as far as you desire to
You can go somewhere just by thinking about it
Everyone knows your name and knows about you, and you them
God records every detail of your life and is in books
The Lamb's Book of Life has the name of every saved Christian (these will not suffer damnation)
The river of life is where you go to bathe and remove any last vestiges of your former life
Everything you say is recorded in a book
All of your tears are in a bottle
People burst into spontaneous fulfilling worship all over Heaven
The saints are allowed to look into the lives of the move of God on earth
Particularly family members weddings and births
Angels are dispatched to bring about answers to believer's prayers
There's a big to do preparation for the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb" (great celebration)
Seeing the Father, Jesus, & the Holy Spirit
All of the many angels. Many follow us doing works for us, setting up appointments, protecting us. They have their testimony of their righteous works that follows with us when we go to Heaven.

Accounts of Hell
Absolute darkness
Your spirit body has all of its senses magnified
Worms enter into and torture your body which do not die
Your spirit body burns from the inside (which will never stop)
The most sickening smell and noxious fumes are emitted which would normally kill you
There is a great struggle for every breath
The screams of absolute agony
The fears of the damned that their family members will end up there
Being tortured by wicked spirits
Receiving torture from whatever was your god on the earth (could be money, booze)
The worst ... The feeling of absolute loneliness (even though you're packed in there tightly), hopelessness, and removal from God

If I could do anything in the world to prevent you from going there, including staying up all night to preach, pray or encourage you, I would surely do that.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
Matt 7:13-14