To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-01-2017, 05:46 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(10-01-2017 08:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 01:53 AM)Wallisddj Wrote:  And, I believe that atheism is made-up baloney, too.

Not really. I made statements before that I am sure are much more stupid.

Interesting that you don't back up your accusation, though. Love to hear it.

Atheism is a lack of belief in theistic claims - it makes no claims, there is nothing to be 'made-up'.
Your statement was and is idiotic.

I have enjoyed reading Austin Cline's site (atheism.about.com). He has helped me understand atheism much clearer, even though I have read up on the subject.

I am going to fall back on Ecclesiastes ("The Teacher") 3:18-21. He may have been one of the first atheists to be copied. Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 sums up human existence, thought, word, and deed. Meaningless in the long run.

Within a person's lifetime, things are important. Outside that lifetime, things were not important. They fade away. They are forgotten. We remember people and their deeds to either emulate or shy away from. But in the end, humanity has been traveling on this wave of highs and lows for many, many thousands of years.

Then we have the Buddhist concept of eternalism and nihilism.

Eternalism is easiest to understand because it recognizes that nothing in this world is permanent. Within this framework, nothing has meaning, no worthwhile goals or useful morals exists.

At the same time, Buddhism sees spiritual goals as worthwhile. While mundane things, such as religion, philosophy, psychology, and any knowledge we pick up on the way through life holds no real value. It might to the individual, I grant you. But in the grand scheme of things, these things get us nowhere. In fact, if we are reincarnated, we have to learn the damn things all over again!

Spiritual goals are recognized as being meaningful. If one uses the tools at hand, such as philosophy and psychology, as a means to understand and achieve spiritual goals, that is deemed good. But in the end, once a certain enlightenment has been achieved, then even these tools are abandoned along the wayside.

Hence, my statement. To you, atheism is something you probably hold dear. To me, at my stage in life, it and all the others are merely constructs to organize daily life while at the same time realizing such things don't really matter as one tries to attain spiritual levels deemed desired by the individual.

Personally, I tire of being on the Wheel of Life forever and ever. Our ancient ancestors believed that the gods (who are depicted as extraterrestrials by some) would rescue them and take them to an abode in the stars. Well, that didn't happen: at least no one came back to tell us that it really happened. So theism doesn't work for me.

Austin Cline wrote: "Atheism is not only compatible with the adoption of a public, organized religious belief system, it is also compatible with the adoption of a very personal and private religious faith.

"On the other hand, if spirituality is treated as 'something else,' something fundamentally different from religion, then the question becomes harder to answer.

"Spirituality seems to be one of those words which has as many definitions as it does people trying to define it. Often, it is used in conjunction with theism because people's spirituality is 'God-centered.'" [Note: mine is not.]

He goes on to say: "For some people, it involves a variety of very personal things like self-realization, philosophical searching, etc. . . All of these and similar senses of 'spirituality' are entirely compatible with atheism."

Personally, atheism doesn't fit me. Different strokes for different folks. The key word I find here is "personal." Whatever is in my head has been basically formed--made up, if you will--based on observation, accumulation of knowledge, and internalization.

There is a part of me, however, that keeps bringing up the nagging question: "Where is the validity, the worth in all this?" Vanity, vanity. All is vanity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 06:21 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(11-01-2017 05:46 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  "Where is the validity, the worth in all this?"

Can you expand on this point.

Oh and as for atheism.

WHAT IS ATHEISM?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.


American Atheists.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Banjo's post
11-01-2017, 08:37 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(11-01-2017 04:47 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Hitchhiking on psychology, I do not believe altruism exists. People might feel that they are being altruistic, but I support the idea that people do things that will make themselves feel good. Lines from Frasier (The Good Son):

It could be that natural selection favored collaboration for the good of the herd and altruism evolved as a natural extension from that. The fact that it makes people feel good is merely the evolutionary reinforcement mechanism. Don't see why you think altruism doesn't exist.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
11-01-2017, 08:38 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(11-01-2017 05:05 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Personally, I feel that all theistic religions consist mostly--95% at least--of silly nonsense.

"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." - Joseph Campbell

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
11-01-2017, 08:55 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(11-01-2017 05:46 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  There is a part of me, however, that keeps bringing up the nagging question: "Where is the validity, the worth in all this?" Vanity, vanity. All is vanity.
Your question seems to imply a particular KIND of validity, an externally given and bestowed or perhaps inherent validity. There isn't any of that kind of validity to be had. However, you can find your own meaning and purpose and it is, in my experience, more than sufficient.

Most existential angst arises out of human hubris, the desire to live outside our true scope: that of a mortal being in an indifferent universe. Religion, by and large, tells you that you are a special snowflake, to the extent that the creator and sustainer of the universe has you in his back pocket. Once you get over this inflation, get over yourself, there is a wide range of meaning and purpose there for the taking.

Another aspect of this is that people tend to seek out happiness when what they really want is contentment. Contentment comes from living within your true scope, within which context there is plenty rather than lack.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like mordant's post
11-01-2017, 09:47 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
When it comes to vanity perhaps it is best to speak for oneself.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
11-01-2017, 09:54 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(11-01-2017 08:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 04:47 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Hitchhiking on psychology, I do not believe altruism exists. People might feel that they are being altruistic, but I support the idea that people do things that will make themselves feel good. Lines from Frasier (The Good Son):

It could be that natural selection favored collaboration for the good of the herd and altruism evolved as a natural extension from that. The fact that it makes people feel good is merely the evolutionary reinforcement mechanism. Don't see why you think altruism doesn't exist.

Reality-motivations are complex.
Hitchhiking on Psychology, no one does anything for only 1 simple reason.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 10:56 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(11-01-2017 06:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 05:46 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  "Where is the validity, the worth in all this?"

Can you expand on this point.

Oh and as for atheism.

WHAT IS ATHEISM?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.


American Atheists.

What you have stated here is what I find in Austin Cline's web site.

One example I have used in the past is the prelude question: What was the name of Julius Caesar's barber?

Perhaps some real hard digging might surface a name, but I doubt it. While the barber was alive, it was very important to be the best barber possible. After all, he had to make Julius look the best. (Believe that Julius had a physical deformity, but that could just be something I misread.)

But in the long run, historically speaking, for the barber, he probably didn't change the world or make an impact.

Another thought that I have percolating in my brain is the notion that once I am dead, the world ends. What proof do I have that history will continue after I have left the game.

The game is dead, but I'm not. I move on to another game. What is to assure me that when I enter the new game that it is an extension of the one that I just finished playing?

While I am not completely convinced that reincarnation has validity, I have experienced some very strange "visions," if you will. And the woman who I was with shared virtually the same visions. We were married three times, and in one lifetime I was actually the wife. We had children, and we were slaughtered in our tents by rival or invading armies. Weird to say the least.

So, if I am doomed to repeat the same blooming and repetitive of learning, making mistakes, gaining knowledge only to have all of it ripped away at death, I am led to the conclusion of "The Teacher." Only I would probably be tempted to use the vernacular and state: "All is bullshit."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 10:58 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(11-01-2017 08:37 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 04:47 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  Hitchhiking on psychology, I do not believe altruism exists. People might feel that they are being altruistic, but I support the idea that people do things that will make themselves feel good. Lines from Frasier (The Good Son):

It could be that natural selection favored collaboration for the good of the herd and altruism evolved as a natural extension from that. The fact that it makes people feel good is merely the evolutionary reinforcement mechanism. Don't see why you think altruism doesn't exist.

Short answer, I guess: I have been influenced by psychology and by Buddhist meditation to see that I really am a ME person, and everything I do is from a cause-and-effect phenomenon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2017, 10:59 PM
RE: To theists only: is it reasonable for a theist to sin?
(11-01-2017 08:55 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 05:46 PM)Wallisddj Wrote:  There is a part of me, however, that keeps bringing up the nagging question: "Where is the validity, the worth in all this?" Vanity, vanity. All is vanity.
Your question seems to imply a particular KIND of validity, an externally given and bestowed or perhaps inherent validity. There isn't any of that kind of validity to be had. However, you can find your own meaning and purpose and it is, in my experience, more than sufficient.

Most existential angst arises out of human hubris, the desire to live outside our true scope: that of a mortal being in an indifferent universe. Religion, by and large, tells you that you are a special snowflake, to the extent that the creator and sustainer of the universe has you in his back pocket. Once you get over this inflation, get over yourself, there is a wide range of meaning and purpose there for the taking.

Another aspect of this is that people tend to seek out happiness when what they really want is contentment. Contentment comes from living within your true scope, within which context there is plenty rather than lack.

I agree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: