Introducing myself

[Chesterton]

Lately I have been re-reading my Thucydides. I first read it as a young man, but it is shocking to think about how the military actions of the intermediary twenty or so years mirror so accurately the events of classical Greece. I was particularly bemused to read of the Corinthian envoy who exclaimed that Sparta and her allies must rush off to war with Athens, because the Athenians harboured technologies that Sparta should fear. Thucydides did not call them "pre-emptive strikes" against "hostile nations" that are purported to harbour "Weapons of Mass Destruction" but it would be telling, if he did.

America like Sparta? The compliment is a stretch, but thank you. "Better safe than sorry" I always say. "A stitch in time saves nine", "an ounce of prevention...", etc., etc.

After reading the first paragraph in this quote, I was ready to concede that this may be an argument with no answer. I could argue that man-created religion takes its morality from humans, and you could argue the other way around, without any consensus. Does this paradigm, then, render the argument irrelevant? What truly moral statement or action could be taken by a believer that an unbeliever could not also make (or vice-versa)?

This made me think of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Goodness is goodness regardless who performs it. However, the moral statements or actions an unbeliever makes are not grounded in anything real. Any statement an atheist makes which begins with the words should or shouldn't, would have to be admittedly arbitrary, and that arbitrariness would contradict and negate the idea of absolute value contained in the word should.

This seems like a very noble resolution, and I would like to be able to rely upon it as fact sacrosanct – except that many christians state that they get their morality, "from the bible," and seem to infer that without the bible a person is "immoral". You seem to understand how vapid and offensive this is. Therefore, I would like to ask about your thoughts on this. (That is also a request open to anyone reading this conversation.)

I agree with most of Aiki's post above. I don't see how I could have come to possess a conscience by natural means.

And I don't doubt that you may have heard some Christians say they get their morality from the bible, though I've never heard that myself. But no, we don't get our morality from the bible as if it were an instruction manual. Within the bible itself, it is recognized that all men have a conscience.

In regard to the paragraph about Confucius, I can certain grant and openly avow, that indeed there is, and he was referring indirectly to "an Inventor." The way an atheist would phrase that would be change the quoted words here to "the inventors". These inventors refer to the humans preceding Confucius who gave him the lineage of thought which he was privy to. Note that Confucius does not ever say that he "agrees with a transmitter". Confucius is merely transmitting the parts of the inventors' invention with which he agreed. This might have included parts of your bible, if the chronology had been reversed. It would not likely include the whole thing. I believe this to be a very important distinction.

Yes, I can see how the same thing could happen even if you attribute morality solely to biology. But it seemed you were saying (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that Jesus' claim of divinity was somehow diminished because "he didn't say anything new". My point was limited to the idea that if there were an external source of morality, we should expect that even men who were separated greatly by time and geography should come to the many of the same general conclusions.

With good wishes for your health and happiness,

Same to you.

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

America like Sparta? The compliment is a stretch, but thank you. "Better safe than sorry" I always say. "A stitch in time saves nine", "an ounce of prevention...", etc., etc.

Oh my goodness! Chesterton is an american! I had no idea!

I suppose that it is still morally correct for me to engage in intellectual conversation with you – provided that we still maintain diplomatic distance in matters of trade and the craft of war. Let us keep these lines drawn in the sand.

So, en garde, good sir! (Or rather, not "sir", because you don't have those in america, do you? Shall I just call you "Chesterton"?)

Yes, I can see how the same thing could happen even if you attribute morality solely to biology. But it seemed you were saying (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that Jesus' claim of divinity was somehow diminished because "he didn't say anything new". My point was limited to the idea that if there were an external source of morality, we should expect that even men who were separated greatly by time and geography should come to the many of the same general conclusions.

I do not think that I was attempting to extend my notes about Confucious to the Galilean messiah or his claim to divinity. Perhap I was – but it would have been the calvados speaking. My argument about the divinity of Jesus would have been limited to: "He was not." I am an atheist, remember.

This american thing has really come as a shock – please excuse me as I attempt to clarify the new grounds that we stand upon. I see your point about external sources of morality standing across time and space, but I need to ask this in order to contextualize my understanding: In your estimation (or your god's) was the U.S. invasion of Iraq morally correct?

Forgive me for asking such a direct question. We must strike to the heart of this matter, so that it is dead for once and for all!

Fight on, my american friend!

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

So, a person like Jeffrey Dahmer, a self-professed atheist and the convicted murderer and cannibalizer of over a dozen young men, cannot be condemned by atheists on moral grounds for his evil deeds.

Oh you silly, silly canadian, you:

Is morality god-given, or a product of evolution? How far is Winnipeg from Montréal? These things are irrelevant when you consider the case of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Atheists can very easily condemn Dahmer on moral grounds. More than ninety-nine percent of the planet would condemn him – the proof of their morality lies in the fact that these individuals do not go about cannibalizing people willy-nilly, be they christian, atheist, buddhist, or candomblé. Because Dahmer causes such reprehension among such a disparate group, he may be identified as amoral. Mere observation, sir, is all that is required.

"Watson, look up. What do you see?"

"Well, I see thousands of stars."

"And what does that mean to you?"

"Well, I suppose it means that of all the planets and suns and moons in the universe, that we are truly the one most blessed with the reason to deduce theorems to make our way in this world of criminal enterprises and blind greed. It means that we are truly small in the eyes of God but struggle each day to be worthy of the senses and spirit we have been blessed with. And, I suppose, at the very least, in the meteorological sense, it means that it is most likely that we will have another nice day tomorrow. What does it mean to you, Holmes?"

"To me, it means someone has stolen our tent."

To compare myself to Jeffrey Dahmer, because we are both atheists is as absurd as to compare Dahmer to our man Chesterton merely because they are both americans. Silly.

What is your argument, then, to those people who point to the morally upright of the jesus-less candomblé?

Sending warm wishes to cold Winnipeg,

The Gentleman Atheist

 

[Chesterton]

Oh my goodness! Chesterton is an american! I had no idea!

I suppose that it is still morally correct for me to engage in intellectual conversation with you – provided that we still maintain diplomatic distance in matters of trade and the craft of war. Let us keep these lines drawn in the sand.

So, en garde, good sir! (Or rather, not "sir", because you don't have those in america, do you? Shall I just call you "Chesterton"?)

So long as you take no steps to interfere with the exportation of Guinness Stout to my country, we'll be fine.

I do not think that I was attempting to extend my notes about Confucious to the Galilean messiah or his claim to divinity. Perhap I was – but it would have been the calvados speaking. My argument about the divinity of Jesus would have been limited to: "He was not." I am an atheist, remember.

This american thing has really come as a shock – please excuse me as I attempt to clarify the new grounds that we stand upon. I see your point about external sources of morality standing across time and space, but I need to ask this in order to contextualize my understanding: In your estimation (or your god's) was the U.S. invasion of Iraq morally correct?

Forgive me for asking such a direct question. We must strike to the heart of this matter, so that it is dead for once and for all!

This isn't the forum for it, but I don't mind discussing that if you wish. Yes, within the context of a fallen world, I think the invasion was probably morally correct. Whether it was effective is a different question, one that may not be answered for more than 100 years.

 

[aiki]

Oh you silly, silly canadian, you:

Is morality god-given, or a product of evolution? How far is Winnipeg from Montréal? These things are irrelevant when you consider the case of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Well, I'm afraid I have to disagree. My quotation of Jeffrey Dahmer was given in demonstration of the fact that a naturalistic-atheistic worldview (the two things typically go hand-in-hand) followed to its rational conclusion allows for the kind of thinking that Dahmer espoused and the behaviour it engendered. Personally, I don't find this particularly "silly."

Atheists can very easily condemn Dahmer on moral grounds. More than ninety-nine percent of the planet would condemn him – the proof of their morality lies in the fact that these individuals do not go about cannibalizing people willy-nilly, be they christian, atheist, buddhist, or candomblé. Because Dahmer causes such reprehension among such a disparate group, he may be identified as amoral. Mere observation, sir, is all that is required.

Atheists may condemn Dahmer on moral grounds but the naturalistic philosophy to which atheism is most commonly aligned provides no basis for asserting right or wrong, moral or immoral. My point wasn't that atheists wouldn't find Dahmer's crimes abhorrent and condemnable; as you say, most of them do. It was that when they condemn his evil deeds, they do so in defiance of naturalistic atheism.

Your remarks above seem to imply, essentially, that morality is defined by the number of people who hold a particular attitude toward a specific behaviour: Everbody agrees that Dahmer's cannibalism was immoral therefore it is. But what happens when the majority of people agree that cannibalism is okay? Is it therefore moral?

I think the fact that, by and large, people everywhere (including atheists) would condemn Dahmer's cannibalism as evil suggests that there is an objective morality that exists. But how does such a morality come into being? Impersonal, random, mechanical, natural processes cannot account for such a thing. God, at least the one revealed in the Bible, on the other hand, makes the existence of objective morality perfectly sensible.

Peace.

 

[singpeace]

G.A.,

I kept thinking, "What if...?" What if Christ is real? What if there is a Father in heaven Who loves me? What if I can live in heaven for all time?

I decided to give God the opportunity to make a believer out of me.

I challenged God to prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that He, His Son, and the whole story of salvation were real. He had to convince me.

He did convince me; and that was 20 years ago. Since then, I can say with all honesty that I have not doubted Him again. He is alive in me.

 

[Spoonbill]

G.A.,

I kept thinking, "What if...?" What if Christ is real? What if there is a Father in heaven Who loves me? What if I can live in heaven for all time?

I decided to give God the opportunity to make a believer out of me.

I challenged God to prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that He, His Son, and the whole story of salvation were real. He had to convince me.

He did convince me; and that was 20 years ago. Since then, I can say with all honesty that I have not doubted Him again. He is alive in me.

Can I ask what proof you received that gave you evidence God was real?

 

[singpeace]

Of course. I'm more than happy to share.

I remember I gave God 2 weeks to come through with something. I would set aside 30 min. to 1 hr. each day alone, with the phone unplugged, and no TV or distractions. This was my own way of knowing at the end of two weeks that I had given it more than a good try and could let it go.

God utterly shocked me by showing up in the first 10 - 15 minutes on the first day.

I remember feeling silly talking out loud. I told him I was there and that I would wait 30 min - 1 hr or something like that.

I think everyone has his or her own distinct experience.

I was quietly sitting on the sofa when I sensed something like one does when someone has walked into the room but you haven't looked at them; you just know they're there.
But no one was there but me.
I asked, "God, is that You?"

Suddenly, I felt full, but not like when we eat food; still, it was a full feeling in the core of my belly. Then, I began tingling all over like some kind of electric current but it was all over me, inside and out. It filled every molecule of my being, and I felt light but at the same time, filled/consumed. The air seemed easier to breathe, and the room was lighter.

Then, I KNEW HIM. I RECOGNIZED HIM. I sobbed and laughed for several minutes.

I felt, and I KNEW His Spirit. He made me clean. He came into my heart and made me whole, and I was reborn.

I had not even said the sinner's prayer. I said it later because I thought it was protocol or something. Then I called my parents and everyone else I could think to tell.

That's my story.

 

[Spoonbill]

Of course. I'm more than happy to share.

I remember I gave God 2 weeks to come through with something. I would set aside 30 min. to 1 hr. each day alone, with the phone unplugged, and no TV or distractions. This was my own way of knowing at the end of two weeks that I had given it more than a good try and could let it go.

God utterly shocked me by showing up in the first 10 - 15 minutes on the first day.

I remember feeling silly talking out loud. I told him I was there and that I would wait 30 min - 1 hr or something like that.

I think everyone has his or her own distinct experience.

I was quietly sitting on the sofa when I sensed something like one does when someone has walked into the room but you haven't looked at them; you just know they're there.
But no one was there but me.
I asked, "God, is that You?"

Suddenly, I felt full, but not like when we eat food; still, it was a full feeling in the core of my belly. Then, I began tingling all over like some kind of electric current but it was all over me, inside and out. It filled every molecule of my being, and I felt light but at the same time, filled/consumed. The air seemed easier to breathe, and the room was lighter.

Then, I KNEW HIM. I RECOGNIZED HIM. I sobbed and laughed for several minutes.

I felt, and I KNEW His Spirit. He made me clean. He came into my heart and made me whole, and I was reborn.

I had not even said the sinner's prayer. I said it later because I thought it was protocol or something. Then I called my parents and everyone else I could think to tell.

That's my story.

So you meditated with minimal distractions and you were filled with a sense of well-being and one-ness with a spiritual entity. You felt rejuvinated afterwards and almost "renewed" spiritually and physically?

Cool. I get this too, except I call it meditation. You should do this more often. Its good for you.

 

[ephraimanesti]

So you meditated with minimal distractions and you were filled with a sense of well-being and one-ness with a spiritual entity. You felt rejuvinated afterwards and almost "renewed" spiritually and physically?

Cool. I get this too, except I call it meditation. You should do this more often. Its good for you.

The difference, my friend, is that the benefits, such as they are, of your "meditation" last, at best, for a few hours.

Oneness with Abba, on the other hand, lasts for all eternity.

In reality, you "get" nothing, and as a result you are grossly selling yourself short by being so easily satisfied with crumbs.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[Spoonbill]

The difference, my friend, is that the benefits, such as they are, of your "meditation" last, at best, for a few hours.

Oneness with Abba, on the other hand, lasts for all eternity.

In reality, you "get" nothing, and as a result you are grossly selling yourself short by being so easily satisfied with crumbs.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

What? Meditating improves your life permanently. Not for "a few hours". I recommend you read up on meditation and the effects it has on ones body and mind. What the lady was describing above was entering a transendential state of meditation. The tingling, the feeling of spiritual rejuvination etc. She described ALL the symptoms, although she seems to think it was God entering her body. Unfortunatly this is just what happens when you go into deep meditation. There is nothing supernatural about what she described. I have felt the exact same thing many times as I try to do this almost every day.

Everything she is experiencing is internal. This is not a "religious experience".

 

[ephraimanesti]

What? Meditating improves your life permanently. Not for "a few hours". I recommend you read up on meditation and the effects it has on ones body and mind. What the lady was describing above was entering a transendential state of meditation. The tingling, the feeling of spiritual rejuvination etc. She described ALL the symptoms, although she seems to think it was God entering her body. Unfortunatly this is just what happens when you go into deep meditation. There is nothing supernatural about what she described. I have felt the exact same thing many times as I try to do this almost every day.

Everything she is experiencing is internal. This is not a "religious experience".

How in the world can you, who believe in nothing beyond yourself, be a judge of what is "religious" and what is not?

The physical manifestations of spiritual experiences do, indeed, often mimic their non-spiritual counterparts, however their genesis is in a far different place and their outcomes lead one on a far different path--into the light rather than further into the darkness.

Were you, in fact, capable of judging these things rightly, you would have changed your "belief icon" from the apt illustration of the spiritually "darkened mind" of an atheist to the transforming Cross of a Christian long ago.

As our Lord exhorts, "Stop judging by mere appearances, and begin to make righteous judgments." (John 7:24)

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[hikersong]

There is nothing supernatural about what she described. I have felt the exact same thing many times as I try to do this almost every day.

Everything she is experiencing is internal. This is not a "religious experience".

I would think that it shouldn't matter to what one attributes the source. Singpeace said she was waiting for God, so it stands to reason that she attributes the experience to God. As long as she isn't forcing that explanation on you and your experiences then every one's a winner.

How in the world can you, who believe in nothing beyond yourself, be a judge of what is "religious" and what is not?

How can you be a judge of another person's understanding about life? Spoonbill has his explanation. You certainly can't prove that explanation wrong, so why belittle it and put your own understanding on a moral pedestal? Why not just agree to differ on one's understanding and wish other a happy life.

None of this means that I don't believe in objective truth. It means that the proof that someone is seeking truth doesn't depend on whether they agree with you or not.

If God exists and is just and loving then a persons heart will be clear and all will be well.

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

Ephraim, I think that that is just about enough of your petty bluster. Your posts prove you to be wholly ignorant of manners when you do not even pay heed to the biography of those to whom you "respond". You mistake atheist for pantheist, and goodness-knows-what else. Shame on you for your rudeness and disrespect.

Be co-operative and nice, or I will report your spiteful and malicious bullying to our moderators. This is your last warning.

The Gentleman Atheist

How in the world can you, who believe in nothing beyond yourself, be a judge of what is "religious" and what is not?

The physical manifestations of spiritual experiences do, indeed, often mimic their non-spiritual counterparts, however their genesis is in a far different place and their outcomes lead one on a far different path--into the light rather than further into the darkness.

Were you, in fact, capable of judging these things rightly, you would have changed your "belief icon" from the apt illustration of the spiritually "darkened mind" of an atheist to the transforming Cross of a Christian long ago.

 

[singpeace]

That was 20 years ago, and I have experienced this and more many many times. I still do.

This is what I believe:

I believe that given the options in all ideology, I would choose to have as my guide and teacher the One who would willingly take my place in the electric chair in order that I might have a new life with a clean slate.
I believe Jesus did this willingly out of his love and compassion for mankind when He was crucified.

In my opinion, there is no greater friend.

 

[singpeace]

btw: I practiced progressive muscle relaxation (PMR) regularly for a few years before deciding to try God.

It was quite different from my experiences with meditation. I wasn't attempting to get beyond reflexive thinking or into a deeper state of relaxation or mental alertness.
I just sat on the couch and looked around the room; not knowing what to expect.
I made no attempt at meditation, because if God was real, He had to prove it, and get no help from me in doing so.

I totally get meditation and encourage anyone to do it, whether Christian or not. It is good for you. But cross-my-heart, this was and has consistently been .... how to explain? .... I loved meditation and looked forward to it almost every day; however, my experience of meeting God that day changed that. Only because it so far surpassed any secular or Eastern meditation practices that I had known.

I don't ever try to push Christ on anyone. I hope I am always respectful toward others and give answers without any agendas. My part in God's kingdom is to tell others what He did and still does for me. The convicting is all up to him and is none of my business.

 

[ephraimanesti]

Ephraim, I think that that is just about enough of your petty bluster. Your posts prove you to be wholly ignorant of manners when you do not even pay heed to the biography of those to whom you "respond". You mistake atheist for pantheist, and goodness-knows-what else. Shame on you for your rudeness and disrespect.

MY FRIEND,

Yes, i plead guilty to misreading the "belief icon", although i see little or no differences in the all-important matter of reaching oneness with God between atheists who don't believe He exists, and pantheists who worship what He created rather than He Who created it.

At least the pantheists have advanced to the point that they realize that there is sometime outside of themselves to worship and venerate. That, i guess, is an important first step on the journey into the light. My bad for the confusion!

Be co-operative and nice, or I will report your spiteful and malicious bullying to our moderators. This is your last warning.

Would you be pleased and fulfilled if i sat, barked, and rolled-over?

"Malicious bullying"? Come on now!

Anyway, the fact remains that there is a BIG difference between "meditation" as an end in itself, and Meditation as a means to an end of reunification with God. The former does indeed, as advertised, bring peace and relaxation to the mind and body. But, ah!, the later feeds the Spirit, cleanses the soul, and connects the heart with the Heart of God. There is only a superficial similarity between the two.

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[ephraimanesti]

How can you be a judge of another person's understanding about life? Spoonbill has his explanation. You certainly can't prove that explanation wrong, so why belittle it and put your own understanding on a moral pedestal? Why not just agree to differ on one's understanding and wish other a happy life.

MY BROTHER,

Of course he has "his explanation." The point made was that "his explanation" was in error given that he was attempting to equate a Spiritual means of intercourse with God with a material means of relaxation capable only of providing dulcification of the mind and body for a brief period of time. i was not "belittling" anything, i was merely pointing out the error of equating apples with oranges.

None of this means that I don't believe in objective truth. It means that the proof that someone is seeking truth doesn't depend on whether they agree with you or not.

This is very true. However, when the disagreement is in regard to an important spiritual point--such as a confusion regarding meditation goals and outcomes--the mistake needs to be pointed out--not so much for the OP whose mind is probably made up on the subject and not likely to chance, but for the guidance of lurkers who may be sent of in a wrong direction by misinformation and confusion of terms.

If God exists and is just and loving then a persons heart will be clear and all will be well.

"IF God exists"? i thought you were a believer in "absolute truth." Have you not reached the certainty of this particular basic and fundamental Absolute Truth yet?

ABBA'S FOOL,
ephraim

 

[singpeace]

You guys are killing me. You are hilarious. No offense.

If you put your posts in a book you would sell millions. You possess very cool dialect... very refreshing.

 

[The Gentleman Atheist]

So long as you take no steps to interfere with the exportation of Guinness Stout to my country, we'll be fine.

After doing some research, I had my driver take me to a public house to sample some of this "Guinness" that you speak of. I do like to quaff an occasional stout ale, but my goodness, man! This stuff is common Irish swill! You may have it – if you will. I shall stick to my Calvados.

This isn't the forum for it, but I don't mind discussing that if you wish. Yes, within the context of a fallen world, I think the invasion was probably morally correct. Whether it was effective is a different question, one that may not be answered for more than 100 years.

This is puzzling rhetoric — whatever do you mean by, "within the context of a fallen world?"

Do take care when drinking that nasty stuff, will you? I have heard that men have gone blind from it.

The Gentleman Atheist