This is an open letter to the Freethinking Maties executive committee, that consists pretty much of atheists. (I would like to specify more accurately what kind of “atheist” I am talking about, however, I will refrain from doing so. I do not really want to offend anyone, and the rest of this post will be offensive enough.)
If the shoe fits, wear it… Well, there is definitely a shoe, and this shoe fits many people. Many are not prepared to wear it though, it takes courage to do so. Allow me to don the shoe, and parade around in it for a while…
On behalf of everyone with similar questions, there are a number of things we would like to know about the Freethinking Maties society, about who would be welcome to join, and who would not.
Reading the constitution, it really seems geared towards kicking people like me out, if I were to become “too difficult”. Well, I’m being difficult. I’m coming out with all guns blazing. This is known as a “self-fulfilling prophecy”. (Who said prophecies don’t exist anymore?)
This is what fundamentalism does: it causes a reaction. People become reactionary. Richard Dawkins is largely a reactionary, and who can blame him. However, now the fundamentalists on the Christian side are also being reactionary, and are indoctrinating their kids with even greater fervour, to withstand this threat to their very survival. The selfish memes are taking over… it is a matter of life and death. (For the memes…) Do not underestimate the power of memes.
My question remains then: am I welcome?
I am a Freethinker. A Freethinker like you have possibly never met before?
There is no way that I can promise you I will not lead you to Jesus. How can I? I’m sure you’ve heard the statement “God works in mysterious ways” all too often already. It also seems I might have accidentally lead an atheistic friend to Jesus, completely unintentionally. I am a Freethinker, but I am not an anti-theist. I am anti-fundamentalism, I dislike fundamentalism of all kinds, including fundamentalistic atheism. Of course, if fundamentalistic atheism is the thing that provides you with meaning for your existence, who am I to stop you? Please do not feel offended if I weep for you though… I have looked at fundamentalism of all sorts, and I have found no solace there.
I am a Freethinker.
If you guys want to kick me out, I would request that you provide me with a rational reason, backed by evidence. This will be necessary in any case, if you want to maintain your CFI/CFA affiliation, because I assert again: I am a Freethinker.
If my Freethinking scares you, if you are frightened of having your world-view shaken, your assumptions challenged, your precious sense of security torn apart, I suggest you go and start your own little fundamentalistic anti-theistic cult. You can draw up your own equivalent of the Nicaean Creed, and reject anyone that is unable to accept the creed in its entirety. Just like too many fundamentalistic Christians do, you can isolate yourselves and mingle only with friends that think *EXACTLY* like you do. You might not feel lonely, but you will be cut off from humanity. Just like too many fundamentalistic Christians. And it will be a sad day. And I shall weep.
It is done.
Hugo van der Merwe
Freethinker.
Right, now that we have that out of the way, shall we have a civil discussion? Please tell me what it is that you are so afraid of. What is it that you would like to keep out of your society. From this discussion, my friends, that I also consider to be Freethinkers, will be able to determine whether they will want to be members of this society. (I have a number of suggestions myself, but I would like to hear your side first.)
103 responses so far ↓
1 Hugo // Oct 25, 2007 at 2:57 pm
The email I sent had the following pre-amble:
“I know this is radical. I’m sorry we have not had the chance to get to know one another yet. As such I know you have no reason to trust me yet. That cannot be helped. I hope we can still have some time to get to know one another. Eventually you might learn what I am about. My sincerest apologies that I simply do not fit into a cute little box with a label on it.”
Bear in mind I am, in fact, completely serious about everything I write on my blog. If it seems I’m lying, I’m not. (I believe in honesty.) I just seem to have an incredibly bizarre world-view, relative to other people.
2 bluegray // Oct 25, 2007 at 6:48 pm
It sounds as if you have a lot of haunting demons to sort out. I completely understand what you are feeling, I have gone through similar thoughts myself. But rest assure, with enough time you will find your answers. The key is to keep searching, which you are already doing.
I despise labels myself. I rarely fit any particular label. I prefer to spell out my beliefs and not to resort single words that will always mean different things to different people.
I suggest you post in the skeptic.za.org forum. Most of the people there went through similar thoughts and feelings at some stage of their life, and will be glad to assist and argue.
If you haven’t already, I also suggest you read up on Michael Shermers writings. I think you will find this interesting to read:
Two reviews of Richard Dawkins’ latest
3 Freethinking Matie // Oct 26, 2007 at 9:17 pm
You seem to want to irritate the atheists at Freethinking Maties with your accusation of them being “fundamentalist” atheists. Why don’t you look at our side of the argument instead of wanting to push your liberal Christianity down our throats? I do not know of the others, but I have heard it all before, again and again and again(and I have only been an atheist a year!), from different people with different stories and different teachings and different dogmas all proclaiming to be enlightened by their understanding of the Bible, God or Jesus. I have previously referred to http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/, also known as Biblical Errancy, to show that the Bible is so erroneous that next to nothing can be learnt of it.
I personally do not care one bit about what people write of the wonderful teachings of the Bible, as it is from an erroneous source. They may have beautiful things to say, but I feel there is a place for moral teachings in the field of Ethics, not in some random person’s view about a self-contradictory source.
4 Hugo // Oct 26, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Thank you so much for your comment/reply. I hope this conversation can be productive.
Your first sentence is indeed somewhat correct. I was indeed trying to prompt an emotional response, based on the hypothesis that that should help cut to the chase, and get to the “truth” of the matter. I’m thinking it worked, on the grounds that I like your comment. It gives me a lot to work with.
In terms of accusations of fundamentalism, the way I define and experience fundamentalism, many of “you” would fall under that category. (May I say “us”, or would it be presumptuous of me to be so inclusive?)
Your second sentence exposes what I believe you fear. It seems you fear I’m trying to push my “liberal Christianity” down your throats. That is indeed not the case, however, I do insist on the right to practice my “beliefs”, personally. This blog is one place where I do it, being “my home” on cyberspace. It should not offend anyone. Have I done anything at meetings that offended anyone? Perhaps… I did drop some comments, some snide remarks, that could have been experienced as sarcastic by anyone that felt that shoe fits. This particular tendency of mine is purely reactionary, as I do experience a vehement, uh, dare I say “fundamentalistic”, opposition to my perspectives. There seems to be some “rules” that I may not share my perspectives. This does not seem like freethinking or free thinking to me, but that’s just me I guess. The point is this: I do not want to share my perspectives, but I really do not want to walk around fearing I might just inadvertently draw on something from my cultural heritage, and that suddenly offends everyone. I have had enough of this in the Christian tradition already, where you have to watch what you say. Can you see why I find the “society” potentially fundamentalistic, in this light? The mere fact of making such rules, encourages me to break them. I suspect my alignment is “chaotic good”. You see this in fundamentalistic religion as well: people make very many legalistic rules, making their own life hell, and suffer much more as a result. The mere existence of the rule encourages humanity to break it. It is in our nature. (Now, would I be allowed to drop a creative little referral to Adam and Eve, in a metaphorical sense? Why would such a cultural comment offend you? Would it be better if I twisted it slightly to turn it into blasphemy? Would you then be more at ease?… Resisting the urge to demonstrate, as I have Christian readers. <grin>)
So here’s the thing: at meetings, I do not mind blasphemy. Not at all. In fact, I would even encourage it: I am aware of the fact that it can be a liberating and rewarding, growing experience for someone that was hurt by “the church”.
It seems you were “hurt” by “the church”? Or are you just picking up this cross out of your compassion for fellow atheists that are being discriminated against? Shit, I did it again, a cultural reference. Do you guys now want to kick me out? I’m oh so sorry…
Yes, that last bit was sarcasm. It is a figure of speech, attempting to illustrate something interesting. Why should you be allowed to use sarcasm, and I shouldn’t? Is that free thinking or freethinking?
Your side of the argument: I have looked at it. I know it well. Very well. I’m quite sure I know it better than you think I do, else I doubt you would have wrote what you did.
I do not care whether you would be enlightened by The Bible or not. I don’t give a shit about that. However, I reserve the right to draw enlightenment or inspiration from that very remarkable collection of historical, cultural books…
However, here is something I do care about: anti-science. And you know what? I have a rather interesting approach to dealing with the problem, that I believe is particularly effective. But you close-minded fundamentalistic atheists are to scared to even hear what I would like to do. I’m not forcing it down your throats, I’m not trying to convert you, I just want to be allowed to use my own fucking mind in a way that I believe to be extremely effective. Am I allowed to do that? Am I allowed to fucking think?!
I know you have referred to Biblical Errancy resources. I have referred to Biblical Scholarship… Tit for tat. So who wins that one then? Shit, dude.
Next you make the statement: “the Bible is so erroneous that next to nothing can be learnt of it” - I assume that should end “nothing can be learnt from it” on the grounds that it is trivially easy to learn of it. But now I’m playing the pedantic game. Getting back to the point: I have learnt something from it. I have learnt a lot from it. So now what, have I falsified your statement? Or am I prohibited from learning anything from the Bible in your supposedly non-fundamentalistic world-view?
So… the Bible is an erroneous source. What do you know of Rome? What do you know of any ancient culture for that matter? Have you any fucking clue how history works? Can you please shut up about something you obviously have fuck-all knowledge about? All historical books are erroneous, GET USED TO IT. And here I mean books that were written in the past, not books that are factually correct. Because no book is factually correct. Go talk to a historian.
Freethinkers, clearly you need to organise a talk by some historian, to explain to you the historical-critical method. Or is this a nihilistic society, stating we really can know fuck-all about anything that happened before last Thursday, because no source is inerrant. If you think there are inerrant sources in the world, you are a close-minded fool, you need to learn critical thinking skills, and you need to do so fast. Maybe you need a freethinking society? Oh, no wait, the Freethinking Maties society must be a society where you feel all warm and cushy. I forgot.
And now a little something I agree with: yes, the field of Ethics is indeed a good place for moral teachings. By the way, have you heard of stories with morals? Uh oh, can’t use them, they’re not factually correct, you know. Shame, did you not get bed-time stories from your mother?
Oh, now, I think I have crossed the line. I’m very sorry about that. So let me change my tone of voice immediately. Can you see how counter productive offensive language is? Can you see what happens, in your mind, when we are trying to communicate, and I use some offensive language? Hey, I could have peppered that with “Jesus”, just to get you more riled up, considering you possibly consider “Jesus” a much more potent swear word than anything else I’ve used.
Have you ever learned anything from any movie you went to watch? From any book of fiction you have read? Or don’t you like fiction, because it’s not factual and scientifically proven?
This then, is my hypothesis: the society will not need any elaborate rules to keep people like me out. A mere handful of bigoted fools would do just fine. Birds of a feather, flock together. No need to have rules, that encourages people to break them.
Yea, I’m a bit of an anarchist. I’m sorry, I learned that from Jesus, who looks to me to have been somewhat of an anarchist as well. Viva chaotic good. Oops, again, I’m using a fictional source, fantasy role playing games, to learn something about life, or to communicate about life.
Would that be allowed in your utopian society?
OK then, this is me, no longer a part of your society. Like I said, you don’t need rules to keep people like me away. Blasphemy doesn’t bother me, but bigotry I cannot stand. I’ve seen enough of that in Shofar, why would I want to join a society just to see some more of that?
Do keep my donation though, I would love to contribute. I suspect there could be some good in your movement, as even fundamentalistic movements have some good in them, you know? Oh, no, you don’t, I forgot.
The thing is, as much as I disagree with some of Dawkins’ tactics (Oh shit, I have accidentally criticised some people’s messiah, and blasphemy is maybe not allowed? Or is it?), I still love the guy and respect him for what he is trying to do. How effective or correct it is, is not important. All humans are flawed, I believe. Oh shit again, I’m not allowed to believe that, as I learned that from The Bible, which is flawed. I mean, I learned humans are flawed, based on, amongst other things, the flaws in The Bible, but I’m not supposed to learn anything from The Bible. The Nietzschean Ãœbermensch is a myth, so we are not allowed to discuss that either?
I do hope we can still work together. In fact, I hope you guys would still tell me I am welcome. If and when you do that, I will join. Because I want to.
Not ask me back, that is asking too much, I don’t expect that. All I still want to know, is am I welcome? If you don’t say yes, I will stay away.
I just don’t know
Should I remind you of this little clause in the CFI minimal statement? :
The CFA respects the personal freedom and affirms the right and responsibility of humans to give meaning and shape to their own lives.
That is all I want. Freedom. Freedom of Religion, as well, which is, according to your beloved ethics, a human right, I believe? This actually means, if you kick me out, I could, technically, have your affiliation revoked because you do not follow the minimal statement. However, as I’m probably chaotic good, I don’t give a shit about the rules. Ask me to leave, and I leave. Invite me to join, and I join.
Please see my lengthy discussion in the Freethinking Maties forum on Facebook, if you want to know what I have to contribute. Interested? Or not interested?
I sincerely hope your comment was a troll. If it was, brilliant! I commend you for this wonderful opportunity to express my perspectives. If it wasn’t, I’m sorry if I offended you. I hope you are rational enough to learn something despite your emotion. Or did your emotion get the better of you? Hmm? So who’s the emotional being? Me? You? OR FUCKING BOTH OF US! Yay…
You know, just because I won’t kill your affiliation (that’s figurative speech, by the way), doesn’t mean someone else won’t. It’s a gamble. I don’t know if you like gambling. Did you know that The Bible discourages gambling? Then clearly you should gamble as much as you can, because according to you, there is no truth in the Bible.
Heh, that was a fun rant. Thanks for the opportunity to let off some steam. Please read tomorrow morning’s post, it goes out at 8:30am, if I recall correctly. Please tell me if there’s something in it that you disagree with.
Best wishes (I’ll refrain from the beautiful figure of speech, “God bless”, as it will offend and thereby achieve the opposite of what I’d like to achieve),
Hugo
5 I Currently Renounce My FM Membership // Oct 26, 2007 at 11:25 pm
[...] The comment/rant is long, and is liberally peppered with excessive swearing and insults, you have been warned. It is all pre-meditated and self-aware. I am attempting to demonstrate a point, which I do think some aspiring members dearly need to hear. Here is the comment, not for the faint-hearted. [...]
6 Freethinking Matie // Oct 26, 2007 at 11:40 pm
If expressing my individual feelings about God, Jesus and the Bible here, after being invited to on the Freethinking Maties facebook group, resulted in such a reply, I fear that this may be counterproductive. I apologise if I have offended you, but my thoughts and feelings stay the same toward liberal Christianity’s views, as well as other versions of Christianity. Yet, you did seem to try and provoke reaction with your post, and that is exactly what you got. You know what, perhaps there is something to be learnt about the Bible _with the help of additional historical documents of around that time_. Yet I will remain extremely sceptical about it, as everybody I have ever consulted on the subject seem to have their own specially crafted personal “truth” that they get from the Bible, and excuse me if I seem blunt, but if there are hundreds people, saying combinations of mutually exclusive things(which seems to me like the experts’ opinions on the Bible), I do not think it is unreasonable to disregard what all of them are saying. Moreso if their only source is one document, with the level of error of the Bible, it only sustains my disbelief.
If there is some critical error in my thinking, point it out to me CIVILLY instead of swearing and generally being offensive, and you _might_ convince me to change my mind.
7 Hugo // Oct 26, 2007 at 11:50 pm
YAY! Thank you, that’s brilliant.
We are at peace. Shalom.
I hope we can become good friends.
Hugo
8 Hugo // Oct 26, 2007 at 11:56 pm
And I hope you will understand, in the future, when I try to point out what I think is “more civil” and “less civil”. It will of course be my opinion, but I suspect any creationists you tackle may feel the same.
9 Hugo // Oct 27, 2007 at 12:04 am
Die duiwel had my beet. O nee, wag, ek mag nie van die duiwel praat nie, mag ek?
En dit is nou glad nie meer sarkasme nie. Dit is nou suiwer, saam-lag humor. Sien: nou het ons ‘n pad saam gestap, en het ons ietsie in gemeen in ons geskiedenis. So nou kan ek hopelik sulke grappies maak, en jy sal hulle reg verstaan. Omdat jy meer konteks het. Omdat ons ‘n stukkie kulturele geskiedenis deel.
That was the passion of Hugo. Hmm… shaky stuff…
10 Schalk Burger // Oct 27, 2007 at 12:07 am
This is a very good post. Thank you.
11 Hugo // Oct 27, 2007 at 12:18 am
Sorry, another thing to comment on:
Can you see how important civility can be, when trying to convince someone of something?
12 Negate // Oct 29, 2007 at 10:36 pm
fundamentalistic atheism? dogmatism?
13 Hugo // Oct 30, 2007 at 10:28 am
There’s a nice alternative phrase! Dogmatic atheism… thanks Negate!
14 gerhard // Oct 30, 2007 at 3:23 pm
dude. there is no such thing as fundamentalistic atheism
seriously , the belief in such a thing is just plain silly. It is like saying that one can be fundamentalistic about anti-racism . .
look, atheists tend to believe that existance doesnt require an existing existance to be able to exist. or in a less complicated form, you dont need the existance of a god to explain existance..
you would require something else to exist for god to exist in the first place.. this would lead you to a bit of a logical and intelectual dead end.
you can understand why this logic is stupid right?
if we dont _require_ a god to exist then why do we need to take that extra little step and add god to the mix for life to make senes? we dont.
in a way , god does exist , but only in the form of the universe and time giving life to us but this doesnt mean it has conciousness and a plan.
I think why many people feel offended by atheists and anti-theists is the fact that they highlight how extream of a delusion this is..
like richard dawkins sounds like a melgomaniac, but in reality he is just calling a spade a spade..
look as an atheist , if you come across someone who actually reallllllllly believed in angels and daemons , posessions and the like , and it being clearly not so. then they clearly have lost touch with reality .. we have a name for this kind of state …. Psychosis … these people are from the point of view of an atheist , psycotics
so by calling a spade a spade you take offence
in other words , its the same as saying to a atheist gay or otherly enclined person that they are going to go to hell…
another thing to consider is how much hate christain doctrine actually preaches .. you dont notice it , because of your sterilised view of the religion .. but in reality.. in one hand you preach love etc but on the other hand , condemnati0n to hell , having ur skin burnt off repeatedly as punishment amungst other things …
just think about this … god , the all knowing, created you knowing that he is creating you to punish you for eternaty…. if that was a person , you’d damned the sadist to hell…
15 Steve // Oct 30, 2007 at 3:43 pm
1. One can be fundamentalistic about anti-racism
2. “I think why many people feel offended by atheists and anti-theists is the fact that they highlight how extream of a delusion this is..” Actually, my impression is that many people are offended by atheists because they are quite rude in expressing their opinions. If I think someone is psychotic, I would generally not tell them that to their face. Especially considering psychosis is a disorder, over which the person suffering has no control.
To put it another way, there’s quite a large difference between me thinking you’re an asshole and me actually calling you one ;P
3. “look as an atheist , if you come across someone who actually reallllllllly believed in angels and daemons , posessions and the like , and it being clearly not so…”. Who are you to say whether it’s clear that angels and demons exist?
4. I acknowledge many Christians are just as rude as outspoken atheists, if not more. But one of the key messages Hugo is trying to spread with his blog is that by being more polite and _trying to understand each other better_, our communication can be more effective. So, Hugo would agree that telling atheists they’re going to hell is not a very sensible idea, I believe.
5. Hugo certainly does not have a “sterilised view of the religion”. If you take the time to have a more thorough conversation with him, I expect you’ll find his “liberal humanistic (non)-Christianity” (did I miss anything), is not entirely as nai”ve as you seem to wish to portray it.
16 Hugo // Oct 30, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Of course, which is why I don’t use it.
You are making me curious, do you think life has any meaning?
I think there might be such a thing as dogmatic/fundamentalistic anti-racism. Try your best, see if you can come up with some example of something that would be excessively anti-racism? Think creatively. Think radical…
A quick, fun quote-mine:
Sweet! Glad you noticed.
The reason I get offended by the anti-theists, is because they think it is only a delusion, nothing more.
I suspect Richard Dawkins is a little more humble than he comes across: I base this on the un-cut footage of his interview with McGrath. He is prompted by the “director” or someone. He looks really inquisitive and curious, to me. He would like to understand this “religion” thing. Which is why I’d love to talk to him.
Making 90%+ of humanity off as psychotics is going to get people riled up, yes. Refusing to see the value of what they “believe”, would get you labelled “dogmatic” by me. Of course, it often isn’t easy to see the value, it is so hidden behind… uh… psychosis? And I actually partly blame the atheists for that one… (but yes, they’re definitely not the only ones to blame).
I do notice the hate some Christian doctrines actually preach. Because I was an atheist as well. You’ll notice in another post I claim to still be fluent in “atheist”.
I’d suggest maybe your view of religion is sterilised, on the grounds that you don’t notice the love some Christian doctrines preach? (I can’t blame you though. The hate-spewing Christians are very vocal.)
Anyway, to conclude then, you don’t know me. I hope you’d stick around for a while, that we might get to know one another. I think you have some valuable bits to contribute! Keep it up!
17 Hugo // Oct 30, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Haha! Go Steve! You beat me to it. Now get back to your PhD. It’s bad enough that my thesis is suffering under this thing.
Of course you missed something. A label always does! But that set does do pretty well. I should remember that…
18 gerhard // Oct 31, 2007 at 11:08 am
naturally life has meaning , infact , falsely attributing this meaning of life to god by default, at least from my standpoint , cheapens the glory that is all … well… this.
it took what? 100 billion interitions of man (like creatures) to get us to this point? 100 billion people that contributed to make you the absolute hight of evolution! just think of all that sacrifice, suffering and contribution.
please dont take my ‘god exists’ thing the wrong way, it was more meant as a plea for reasoning without attributing personality or conciousness to this whole thing by default..
i think our problem with fundamentalism is that we seem to define it differently..
‘fundamentalism tend to equate it to a mindset that is both principled and passionate yet unlikely to be altered by any external arguments or contradictory evidence’ is the def i go by.
i agree i may have used the wrong example with anti- racism. but i still stand firm about atheism , sure there are crazys .. but i discount them completely , just like i discount crazy shofar christains and the like… but it seems that the conerstone of atheism is the dynamic nature of science. or rather ‘can be altered by any external arguments or contradictory evidence’
look, i understand how being called psycotic is offensive , but to be honest , half out f’in problem these days is that people arent willing to stand up and do exactly that , call someone an asshole when they are being one.. instead we run away from the argument because we just want to get on with it. this is fine if you dont actually want to achive anything ..
i agree maybe being a little bit more polite would be better, but call a spade a spade dont just think it.
like steve said , psycotics cant help themselves, and this is why the term applies so well to the situation. indoctrination makes someone powerless towards it unless something specific happens to break this kind of brainwashing.
i dont know about you guys , but i had a very religous upbringing , and that in a country where religion is actually taken serious, unlike south africa where you still have some degree of freedom regarding this issue. Dispite this , most of my experiance with religion has been rather good, but that having been said i also have seen the real world damage this stuff causes.
if you want i can elaborate on this too.
my point with the christain-hate-speeches is exactly trying to illustrate to which degree the core fundamental priciples are ignored.. like hell .. like how evil the whole christain meaning of life actuallly is. i think something that seriouslly got to me in the past was going to a moderate christains funeral.. her funeral was 20% about her , 10% about her existance and 70% about the glory of god and condemnation for people who werent christian or just living life the way nature intended.
‘Refusing to see the value of what they “believeâ€, would get you labelled “dogmatic†by me.’
ok, can i ask you something here. do you believe people have a right to believe anything they want to? Its not that i dont see the value that religion has provided in the past and the value that it provides currently , but i really feel that its a matter of us having to ignore so much to be able to see that value that the value is actually lost.
steve: who are you to say that manpigbear or that santa dont exist? oh wait, there isnt any evidence , and the little evidence that is claimed is always so wrong that the likely hood of their existance is miniscule enough for us to be able to say they do not to exist.
hugo: you asked me if i think there is a meaning of life .. that seems to imply that you think that for there to be meaning to life then there would be a need for god.
in my philosophy , life is the meaning of life.
to exist , to leave trace of yourself , to express , to experiance , to create , to contribute. to enable the next generation to be a little bit more evolved than us.
in other words, to progress ..
not just as a single man, but as a society ..
you also say anti-theism sees theism as just a delusion , well, they do see it as a whole lot more.. they see it as a tool , just like fire , a tool that civilized man which comes from a point of our history were man was alot more like a animal .. we needed something like this .. but they feel religion is at a point now where they are causeing more shite than good . esp considering how much more is at stake now …
think about this .. we have people at the button that feel that death is a reward … ehm… sure .. that thinking certainly guarentees the survival of man kind … doesnt this make u nervous?
19 Steve // Oct 31, 2007 at 11:33 am
…and the motivation for a wiki just gets stronger…
These sort of long comments really do make it difficult to keep the dicussion coherent. Anyway, my next response will take some time to formulate. You’ve made a number of points I’d like to address.
At the moment, I’m trying to wrap up my thesis, so my response will have to wait until I get a calculation going that will take some time.
I assume you’re keeping an eye on the comments here (feedreader, or whatever). If not, drop me a mail at kroon at sun.ac.za, and I’ll let you know when I’ve posted a response, if you want.
20 Steve // Oct 31, 2007 at 11:33 am
Damn hugo. Did your blog have to convert my plain text email addy into a mailto: link?
21 Rinus // Oct 31, 2007 at 11:38 am
“but they feel religion is at a point now where they are causeing more shite than good”
Only now? I have to think back to the middle ages where people were severely deceived by the church and the clergy to literally pay the church to have their sins forgiven (hmm… that actually sounds kinda familiar…
), not to mention the crusades and even more recently the NG Kerk’s part in apartheid.
Personally, I think it IS okay to believe whatever you want to, but I also feel it is necessary to be able reevaluate your beliefs. This is where the fundamentalists fail. They blindly believe, without questioning. But this is probably not their fault, as this is what they are coerced into believing.
Concerning ‘fundamentalist atheists’; saying it does not exist is ignorant. I have met some people whom I think are atheists just because it’s a ‘cool’ thing to do. People like Dawkins are being popularized and (dare I say it) even worshiped by some. It’s fine having a role model, but I think some people just eat everything he is saying and taking it to heart, not even evaluating what he is saying. How does that differ from following a fundamentalist leader?
Of course, you’ll always find ‘nuts’ in all walks of life. Saying people who believe in angels and demons are psychotic is fine, but that does not exclude atheists from being psychotic also? Their delusions might just seem so close to reality, it’s harder to tell!
22 Hugo // Oct 31, 2007 at 11:39 am
Hehe, nice reply. Rather long though… I’m trying to trim as much as I can. If we can get back to the core of the matter, cut away too much verbosity, it would be easier for other people to read this stuff later.
Uh… what is “God”, may I ask? It seems you have a much better idea than the Christians do. You say life has meaning. Christians say the same. They call the source of this meaning, they call this “God”. In some ways, you are agreeing with the Christians?
When Christians claim “the source of meaning, is incredibly glorious, more glorious than you can imagine”.
Are you not agreeing with the Christians then?
I do like your definition of fundamentalism. I do agree with it.
Agreed. OK, so what are we disagreeing on here? I’m not so sure anymore…
OK. Let’s solve this problem then. You’re an asshole.
So did that contribute to progress? How did that improve the world? And no, I have no intention of running away from this “argument”.
OK. So it seems you’re agreeing that calling those that you think are “psychotic”, “psychotic”, will get you nowhere. Right?
Naah, no need to elaborate. I’ve seen it also. And I’m trying to help.
Tell me more? I suspect I know what you’re going to say, but I want to hear your words for it.
That does sound evil, yes. I’d love to help them out as well.
Hmm… People do have a right to believe what they want, but that doesn’t make them right, of course. And if it causes harm to others, including their children, I have a problem with it. People shouldn’t have the right to cause harm to other people, including their own children, in my opinion. But here’s the thing: we all harm each other, including our children. Such is life. We do our best, and we try to help one another do better. Make peace with that fact. I think Dawkins, as much as he is trying to do good, is also doing harm. Great harm. (Whether the harm or good is greater, is rather subjective. I always try to emphasize the good… it makes life so much prettier. I love Dawkins… and I’m glad he does what he does, but the harm he’s doing? That’s where I want to try to help.)
I know, however, things are not always quite as they seem…
Drop *all* your assumptions for a second (if you can), and tell me what conclusion you draw based on this statement, and this statement only - in fact, I suggest maybe we should discuss only this, and nothing else in my comment:
God is the source of the meaning of life.
Amen!
I say we still need something like this. I do see the shite though, and that is what I want to address. Let’s get it back to the good, without the bad.
Yes, which is why I feel so driven by my “calling”.
Later!
Hugo
23 Hugo // Oct 31, 2007 at 11:49 am
Steve: wiki is also not the perfect answer. But I think I know what is…
I need more time… (And I fixed your email addy.)
Rinus: please don’t forget the NG Church’s role in ending apartheid. And don’t blame the Church for the Politicians. The problem is mixing church and state. That’s the screw-up.
I love you all. You kick ass. Keep it up. I hope you will all join my church, as soon as I get it built.
24 Rinus // Oct 31, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Hugo,
Of course you are right. I was in no way proclaiming they are inherently evil (like some people do), just using the example to make my point.
I’m also not saying religion only causes grief. My point? Probably the same point you are trying to make? There is good and bad in religion and atheism!
It reminds me of a South Park episode where Cartman sees the future where religion is abolished and society is waging war on what each faction believes to be scientific truth!
25 Hugo // Oct 31, 2007 at 12:06 pm
I think we need to extend the Bible. We need to include the apocalyptic and prophetic content of South Park.
26 Hugo // Nov 1, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Other good news: a nice response from a member of the Freethinking Maties committee. I hope to publish that tomorrow evening. (Trying hard to do my part to make the thesis miracle happen, but I’m still struggling.)
27 gerhard // Nov 6, 2007 at 4:37 pm
well done, the value of calling someone an asshole lies in that it lets you express and the other party know to which degree you disapprove of their opinion or of their method of argument.
i have many question i need you to answer before i can actually argue you.
do you see man as a machine? are they more than ‘just’ machines? Does the answer to this depend on complexity? do you think people are animals? (i know i am repeating this question )
do you believe in the christain bible/derivatives?? as a guide for life? as the word of god? the bible is devine? who do you think wrote it / influenced it? do you think it was meant more as population control by powerfull or well meaning people?
what makes you choose the chrstain doctine over others? or what makes you believe in the christain god opposed to others? do you believe god is also evolving explaining the personality change between old and new testiment?
do you believe universe/ earth / man was conciously designed? universe/ earth / man was a concious out come of some ‘algorithm’ god designed?
is god concious? does he make concious choices when manipulating the universe? do you believe interacts with people/society?
do you believe existance itself depends on a god and so if he didnt exist there would be no reason to exist? Do you need justification for existance?
do you believe in the whole meme thing? that ideas are essentially evolving entities that actually program society? do you believe in groupthink?
i know u said you believe everyone should be allowed to believe , unless those beliefs harm others? then must ask. how much harm must something cause?
i’ve experianced things with friends that was just plain horrible, mormon tribunals for a girl that was dateraped , publically discussing and debating her sin. (her sin of having sex or having let her be in a position where she could be raped) her being punished for this?
gay friends comming out in their communities and families was also not fun. first , she came out to her parents, who gave her lots of christain love and support , while still telling her repeatedly that she is going to go to hell. them orginizeing a church intervention , publically discussing this in church. Ridicule and torment in the streets? people who used to talk to her now not wanting to incase god has issues with this? or brilliant minds , near certified genius , giving up his possible contribution to man but comming a priest? Or a girl 18 of age sleeping with 30 + people because she already had sinned and been austricised by her good christain society because she is already going to hell because of certain sins in her past. she considered herself a bad person not worthy of being saved.
i’m know these are small things to you but in their worlds , religion destroyed alot of who these people are … or will be.
what you said about the ng kerk /church people fighting apartheit ? well ask yourself this. did they fight it when it wasnt cool to fight them? or did they do it once embargos and international churches started applying pressure? doesnt this get classed as saving your own skin?
lets move on to a more macro level. Society is suffering from religious ideals. just take a look at how much hard chrstain belief in nuclear family has caused? is in reality family really that straight forward?
does chrstain belief in the sanctaty of each and every life not cause harm to society?
sure, again i can pick and choose between chrstain doctrines , and point as catholic condom use, or protostant stemcell research.
what about aborting a child because of if u have it , you will most likely have no social or econommic progress? dont read this as dry as it sounds , i mean it more along the line of keeping the poor, poor.
go back in history, why do we have the term harlot again? why do priests have a vow of chastity? what about all that scientific progress that chrstains have stopped in the past? what about things like the burning of the libary of alexandria ? how long did we have to wait again till we recaptured the ideas lost? like how big the earth was , if it was round or not, if we rotated around the sun?
if you want i can keep going and going .. on almost every level.
If religion was a drug , it would be alk .
bloody amazing when u first discover it and for many people they can continue use for most of their life it is mostly harmless.
but once you count all the problems it causes together then u gotta question the degree of it use. sure not everyone will be exposed to the bad parts of it.
unlike rinus , i do believe religion is inherently evil , my proof? simple.
If i told you to do something. and you didnt do it. would threat of eternal damnation … be anything other than inherently evil?
please think about this .. eternal damnation .. ETERNAL DAMNATION???? u getting this …
eternally tortured and unfullfilled …
*cough*
the ultimate good does not excuse the ultimate evil .
as i stand now , for me , i believe there is far more bad in religion than good. that isnt to say i dont believe some people need it.
and in the same breath , i agree atheism can have its bad sides but i think it is powerless at the moment to do anything other than get a reaction from religion. and to be honest , i fear that reaction more than any actions of a atheist ..
atheist should have more power, and theists less.
I think where we disagree about the fundamental atheism is that it is the same fundamentalism as applied to religion.
with atheism there is no fundamental doctrine to follow. the non existance of god is not proved by science, but does the back it. at the very least it illustrates that the specifics religions have been teaching are mostly bullshit. and that existance without a god is possible.
ok, sorry , this ended up sounding a bit more like a rant than i wanted it to .. i did actually write a 3 page post a week again in response , but for some reason it was lost, so i am redoing it.
please reply to my questions. so i can follow up with more. ( i have more depending on how u anwser the above ones)
28 Hugo // Nov 6, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Eish, that’s a long one, maybe we should postpone this discussion until December…
Yes, man is an animal. The question of whether man is a machine or not, I’m going to skip, for reasons I’m sure you can guess.
This boils down to “what is God?” …
The Bible was written by humans, and documents their “journey with God”. The “human condition” is not a new thing… how old would it be? Millions of years? As such, there is without a doubt stuff to be learned from humans from a few thousand years ago, including Greek philosophers, and the Bible. It is useful as a guide to life, thus, as are other ancient texts. I will be reading some of the other “great religions”‘ texts later, and will share what I see there.
I don’t think The Bible was meant for population control by powerful people, not at all. What it was meant for, and what it was used for, is not necessarily one and the same thing though.
There exists varying Christian doctrine. “Conservative” Christian doctrine opposes other religions. “Liberal” religious traditions, however, typically embraces diverse traditions. I’m a liberal, and a humanist, if that helps…
In terms of “God evolving”, no… I’m happy with the Christian doctrine that “God never changes”, only our understanding of God changes… I have a unified view of human culture, I only think of one “God”, and all cultures were/are looking for this “God”. (Think: “God-shaped hole” in human psyche.) In this sense, the polytheism of old, and hinduism, is also “worshiping God”, their perspective of “God” is just a polytheistic one… The New Testament is thus just a new understanding of “God”.
These questions show a very “causal” perspective of “God”. They fall apart a little from my perspective, so I don’t know how to answer them. “God” does indeed interact with people/society, in the sense that God has an effect on the people that believe in him, if you know what I mean.
Memetics and memes are a fact of life, just like evolution. (I mean, it’s evolution of thoughts/ideas/culture, after all.) I’d personally avoid the words “programming society” though, that just feels like a simplification. (Similarly I dislike that “DNA is our code, our software” metaphor. I think it’s a broken metaphor? Haven’t spent much time exploring it though, picked up the feeling from elsewhere.)
We all do harm. We all should try to reduce the harm we do. Older beliefs were more harmful. We try to improve our beliefs to reduce the harm…? Something like that? Richard Dawkins is also doing harm with his “beliefs”… I don’t blame him for it though.
I know.
I’m afraid you’ll have to wait until I get to posting about the NG church and homosexuality. (And don’t go speculating on this matter, wait for the post, which will probably be in December, sorry…)
I think I don’t equate religion and belief in hell/”eternal damnation” like you do. When I talk about “religion”, I include e.g. “Zen Buddhism”, for example. My perspective of “hell” and “heaven”, is that it is here, and now… I’m not at all concerned about an afterlife. I find that rather irrelevant.
What is “God”? Something like:
A personification of
- the source of inspiration
- morality
- the abstract target of our thankfulness and appreciation
- our sense of wonder, and of the things we don’t know. Think of Einstein’s notion of “God” for example.
Something like that. I didn’t really want to write this yet, but I thought maybe it would be of value to you if I just do a quick-and-dirty brain-dump. Maybe it helps you understand where I’m coming from?
29 gerhard // Nov 6, 2007 at 9:47 pm
how can i reply like you with the quotes being indented?
30 Hugo // Nov 6, 2007 at 10:29 pm
You need to enclose quotes in <blockquote>…</blockquote> - let’s hope that by some time next year, this site will be running on Mengelmoes, and that it makes this kind of thing much, much easier.
31 gerhard // Nov 7, 2007 at 2:35 am
god is a personification? as in idea or meme? i could very much agree to this notion. tho this reminds me alot of the last imagineland episode from south park. kyle convincing the government that imagineary things are real because of their impact on society and reality.
it also doesnt sound like you really are a chrstain. liberal or not, you are saying god is a personification or more of a abstract concept not a real concious being.
i would also say you are right about the g-shaped whole, i just think you are attributing it to the wrong thing tho. a machine without purpose needs to find purpose to function.. at least function to fullfill evolutionary needs , live , procreate , fuck shit up, build shit up, ie test the machine by using the machine, smash competitors or threats and loving your kin.. as soon as you stop struggling towards something , , you loose purpose so you start looking for purpuse. maybe this is in part is why the worse off you are the more you cling to the notion of a concious god/plan?
look, there is nothing wrong with being a machine , i know it is hard to let go of the notion that you are that little bit more ’special’ than a very very ’special’ very very complex machine , nay, i think we deserve a ‘fuck yeah’. It should actually give you upliftment. it means life isnt contained by the stuff you are made out of. and that it could come in many many many different forms.
you are right with what you said about dna just being software being broken… it seems to be more just one of the bootsequences to life. sure dna might be the blueprint to the physical body and some basic social , psychological behaviour but it discounts the effect memes and your enviroment have let alone the human condition.
also you need more than just instruction, you need something that can act on those instructions. more than just instructions.
i think conciousness is a complex weave of chemical reaction (emotions), the family’s meme,the personal social groups meme , and local and finally general society of exposure meme and a good dose of self selection mixed with obvious natural selection. the idea of being an observer is the ego’s emotional expression. in a way you feel like you are more than a machine because you see the machine as ‘just’ a machine. because you are clearly more advanced.
look, you’re advanced , and you are fuck off clever, compared to what is out there so far but other things are gonna come after you that are super fuck off clever and super fuck off advanced. maybe you could argue that we are evolving into something god like or maybe you could argue that by being concious and able to conciously interact with our enviroment , shape it to our will , control life and death (at least a little so far), make styles of life forms (other machines) is already being god.
i feel that now that evolution has gained conciousness as a tool and should be allowed to muddle with evolution to the best of its ability.
we will be selected based on the success of this.
i feel we generally don’t allow this because we attribute conciousness and emotional reations to be ‘other wordly’ or devine. some sort of connection between conciousness and the soul.. add to that the scare of something going horribly wrong…
i dont either really, but i assume you are in the christain reality , so i must talk of concepts that make sense to christians. i am just trying to illustrate the evilness. why irrelevant. it changes life’s meaning doesnt it? either its a one run, or a ‘do or die’. and heaven and hell are _one_ of the defineing christian doctrines? jews have a limited notion of hell. i think its so limited that its more considered to be oblivion. (a less hatefull god) do other religions have a horrid notion of eternal (for_EVER_ ) torture / damnation? no not really.. some have punishment .. but mostly not as extream as the christain one.
on jesus’s hell ,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hel_bibl.htm
i’m sure that in those 70/162 mentions there was a mention about not following his advice being punished by going to hell.
check up on the original buddism. there was no real god because meaning of life is god.(gross simplification) and the guy originally preaching the stuff actually has real evidence of his existance. in a way it is alot closer to your doctrine than christainity. the only mistake of the doctrine is that it allowes for additions , so in time others have added a personality to multiple ideas which kinda gives it a polytheistic angle.
i just hope that the end result of this conversation however long it will take is that you end up having a post where you define your own god idea and don’t call yourself a chrstain just because you agree with some of the teachings/ideas and concepts.
say , humanitarian agnostic?
32 Hugo // Nov 7, 2007 at 7:23 am
While I have some very significant disagreements with a lot of what you wrote here, the disagreements are becoming increasingly nuanced. As such, it will have to come out at a later date, tackling it under time pressure would be counter productive. Just some shallow thoughts then:
On Hell
It seems I will need to deal with “hell” a lot as well. Note the source of the bit you quote:
I find it interesting, and will want to investigate how our prejudices, our personal, current understanding of “hell”, affects the way we read those passages. Supposedly 70.
My sources claim Jesus spoke much more about “The Kingdom” than about hell, directly contradicting “Jesus spoke more on Hell than on any other subject.” …
On Buddhism
The more “liberal” scholars do see many parallels between Buddhism and Jesus’ teachings. I actually have a “Jesus & Buddha” coffee table book on my shelf. At some point I will tackle some of the more serious “Buddhism compared to Christianity” books. Or “Jesus” rather than “Christianity”, sorry.
I have to disagree with “mistake of the doctrine”. I think the opposite is true. Imagine if we could add South Park to the Bible…
On Labels
I realise the problems with labels, how often they are misunderstood, because they have specific meaning to specific people. This is why I typically avoid them. I’m curious thus, where did I call myself a Christian? (Was that not maybe an assumption of yours?
)
33 gerhard // Nov 7, 2007 at 9:27 am
i agree about the quote, i think clicking/pasting the first searchresult in google may not be the best practice for this discussion : P
so you are not a christian then? u seen a movie zeitgeist? its this really bad 911 conspiracy movie that tries to blame religion a bit for it too
illuminati type stuff..
well , dont watch the whole thing (its crap, and psycotic. ) , but watch the first 10 min .. he spends considerable time comparing jesus , ra’h and other mthyical figures. things like age of prophecy, birth signs etc.
well, i thought the claims were rather … out there .. but i made the effort of checking some of the claims. like look at the star charts of 4 bc in athens. (this research ended with me buying a telescope for shits and giggles )
while i am not saying all the claims are true,i did manage to phsyically verify some of them.
reply to in your own time..
btw, u can email to let me know..
34 Hugo // Nov 7, 2007 at 10:33 am
I’ve seen the first ten minutes of Zeitgeist, I still have it (the first ten minutes). I don’t like it much.
There are little bits of truth in many places. A well educated theologian/pastor/preacher should know that there were multiple “messiah claimants”, and the parallels between the likes of Mithra and Christian memes, etc.
Anything that causes someone to get a telescope, must be of some value! I’ve dreamed about having a good astronomical telescope since I was of single digit age. Maybe one day my ship will come in…
35 Hugo // Nov 7, 2007 at 10:34 am
-> That really depends on your definition of “Christian”, doesn’t it…
36 recommendation // Nov 7, 2007 at 11:14 am
Many many resources for you. They are the NG kerk’s response to shofar and other sects/cults. A visit is highly recommended. http://www.moreleta.org
37 Rinus // Nov 7, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Wow. A lot has happened since I was here last.
I don’t know if what I say is going to contribute to the discussion or not, but let’s just call it a ‘breinspoel’
Feel free to ignore it.
While reading the above posts, I see again something that troubles me. A lot of the ‘misunderstandings’ are due to the fact that once one is assumed the label of ‘christian’, the same old arguments come out.
The problem I have with the whole ‘athiesm vs thiesm’ thing is about the assumptions being made upfront about each other. In my opinion, most of the arguments and/or misunderstandings are more due to the fact that each group is putting the other one in a box (I also make this mistake).
It is frankly insulting that if I call myself a christian, jew, buddhist or an atheist that you start to push me in a box and treat me as part of one whole group. I’d like to treated like the complex person I am, thank you very much.
It is why I avoid the topic of (specifically) my own beliefs. The moment I start to say what I believe (or not believe), I am labeled and put into a box. I don’t want people to debate with a christian, jew, buddhist or an athiest. I want people to debate me!
Finally (and somewhat off the topic of this post), Gerhard, you give nice examples of how religion destroys people. I agree with you and it is quite horrible. But I can also give you examples of how religion saved people. Even while I don’t support their beliefs (or sometimes even completely disagree) I know people who were saved from certain death if it were not for religion. Personally, I think debating whether religion is good or bad is as irrelevant and pointless as it would be to debate if mankind is inherently good or bad. It’ll probably come down to the same anyway.
38 Hugo // Nov 7, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Hear hear! Thanks Rinus.
I need to develop the “You New?” page, it needs to serve this function typically found in revival churches: “Anyone new, please raise your hand, then we’ll clap for you, hug you, praise the Lord for your presence, and fill your hand with a bunch of pamphlets trying to get you up to speed on what we’re about!”…
39 gerhard // Nov 10, 2007 at 4:09 am
labels , labels , labels… labels are but words that discribe you. they let people know who you are. they let people challenge who you are.
if you don’t like the labels then change them.
define who you are.
can you really blame people for sticking you into the wrong labels if you don’t specify?
which you don’t because you don’t want to be in lables? being christain has a certain meaning and distinctive beliefs. agreeing with some, even most christian moral teachings doesn’t make you a christian.
humans have a big design flaw, we seldom question things we know to be right. i think an example of this is being brought up in a ‘christain ‘ house hold so you’re automatically a christain. everyone does soul searching at some point in their life you start examing this and most likely find you agree with alot of it. probably not all of it. but alot of it. so you default yourself to that creed. maybe even not to cause any waves. you know with family/eviroment.
alot of atheists are the result , i think, of rebellion. they are people who take theisticly to atheism. they haven’t really researched the world at large nor alternative theism and just are having a bit of a general brainfart thinking atheism is a set of beliefs like religion. they go back to their original religion with sometimes even sterner beliefs.
generally speaking my encounters with real atheists are people with alot of time on their hands but haven’t really gotten over the god thing. Because alot of them actually believed , they are bewildered about how they ever could have done so, this is followed by a brief but sadistic feeling of relief that 90% of everyone else at least still believe.normally expressed with words like, ‘at least i’m smarter…’ interupted by the thought that still at least 90% of everyone else believe. expressed with something like ‘holyfuck humans are fucking stupid’
I once had a girlfriend to whom i had to explain that i didnt believe her family member had gone to a better place. ie. heaven. this did not compute. she didnt want it to compute. it wasn’t that she was crazy religous. she was kind of a new age christian limbo type person. it was just that she couldnt or wouldnt face the idea or possibility that she would never speak to that person again. that what was , was. look, religion or beliefs like this don’t really help anyone heal. It just lets them lock it away. helps them cope, but not heal.
expressing grief or respect through ritualism is ok. ritualism as a whole is ok, maybe even that involving the personification of natural forces like evolution. just aslong as a distinction is made and everyone know what and why they are doing it. not in hopes of rain or redemption in otherwords.
i know, but surely they were saved because of the support structure it provides? it it hot humanitarians that failed these people? we just dont have as big nor as good of a support social structure yet. please not the yet. i think eventually people will start acting moral for morality sake without some pretense like religion. i am however personally undecided on how far one should go in helping people. i am a firm believer that for people to be helped one needs to show them how to help themselves. the question for me is how often should you show someone something before it is no longer immoral for you give up.
btw, what is everyones thoughts on this question: does evolution contradict humanitarian ideas?
40 Hugo // Nov 10, 2007 at 9:23 am
I am being paralysed by verbosity…
Just a little paragraph on labels then:
I have changed my labels a number of times, and that was useful. At the moment, I’m left without any practical label, and I don’t care if people want to stick the wrong labels on me, I care whether they want to get to know me or not. If they don’t want to get to know me, they are really, sincerely, more than welcome to use whatever label they like to label me and provide them with an excuse to ignore me and continue with their labelled lives.
Labels help quick communication, yes. But humans are always more complex than their labels. If they are not, they are not being completely human.
41 Hugo // Nov 10, 2007 at 11:09 am
You can tag me though. Labels/categories are more “exclusive” in nature. Tags, tags work differently. Thanks to cpbotha for pointing this one out. My list of tags is very diverse and seemingly contradictory…
By the way, you seem to contradict yourself here:
vs
With that second quote, replace “Christian” with any label. By that second argument of yours, we cannot use any labels to label ourselves. People use the “Christian” label because that’s what communicates the idea best. “I’m a Christian because not all Christians are like that…” I’ve heard someone state.
Christians have such trouble defining Christianity themselves, I’m quite surprised that you have such a perfect definition. Maybe you should offer to help out?
42 gerhard // Nov 10, 2007 at 9:57 pm
no no contradiction , i say use labels, but the labels that define you best.
in the second one , labels have establised meaning , and don’t take the ones with which you don’t fully agree on. It’s like being evolutionist and thinking that evolution excludes humans.
you need to look up what christain means in the dictionary or maybe even wiki if you dont have one at hand.
the definition is very clearly layed out there.
you know why , like you say, Christians have such trouble defining Christianity themselves, because deep down ,they know, it’s bullshit to some degree or other.
so they choose to ignore or dismiss _All_ teachings that don’t define them but then still feel that they are being ‘good christain human beings’ so they choose to adjust christianity untill it fits them. so they can still be christains. which means they can call themselves that.
it makes me sad that most people tend not to have discussions about life the universe and everything unless they are in a predefined social context like religious instruction etc. so this just serves as reinforcement. you may be questioned on your beliefs , but you are questioned within a that box.
you must read some of joseph goebbels work. not his bio etc. i mean his work itself.
*cough*
from “Knowledge and Propaganda”: A 1928 lecture on propaganda, some of Goebbels’ most detailed thinking on the matter.
43 Hugo // Nov 10, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Words are defined by the way they are used. Dictionaries try to capture the way words are used, dictionaries do not define words…
So, if 80% of “Christians”, people that call themselves “Christian”, mean it in a different way than you do, who is right, and who is wrong? The way 80% of people use a word, or you, in your ultimate wisdom?
Shouldn’t you rather try to understand what someone means when he or she calls himself or herself a Christian, than you should be telling them what they should or should not be calling themselves?
So what label would you assign to me then, may I ask? Assume I consider myself a follower of Jesus, and I consider Jesus an incarnation of God. May I call myself a Christian, or not?
44 Hugo // Nov 10, 2007 at 10:25 pm
And suppose someone accepts evolution for everything other than humans. Now what label do you insist they use for themselves? Because on the one hand it seems like you insist they use a label, on the other hand you insist they don’t use a label that doesn’t work…
This is what I hear you say:
1) use a label, use the label that defines you best.
2) don’t take a label which you don’t fully agree on.
If 1 and 2 are not considered contradictory, the conclusion is that you are saying you must force yourself into a little box. WTF?!
What am I missing? Please focus on just this one issue, I want to get to the bottom of this. And only this. Thanks.
45 gerhard // Nov 11, 2007 at 12:07 am
lol, you are missing the value of labels
i’m saying find the labels that define you, your ideas and i am saying don’t take a label which you don’t fully agree with.
labels == good == gives common ground
people using wrong label == bad == obscures the common ground
look, the dictionary defines the words as most commonly used within a culture. it is there expressly to define the word within that culture. so we can understand what we are all talking about . so that when a christain says he’s a christain that people understand more or less what he means.
I can’t call myself humanitarian for this exact reason.. i don’t believe humans are perticularly special, but i do believe Sentience is.
I believe evolution shows that sentience or possibility of sentience doesn’t limit itself to humans. In a way you could relate humanitarians to the liberals in the white power movement. because black people aren’t recognized as equal they are less than human therefor humanitarians can ‘close one eye’
you do see how what you are arguing is that the labels are meaningless and that words are essentially useless in communication. afterall , we can’t seem to agree on the meaning of the words. being dismissave of any form of common ground has no position to argue. or am i understanding you wrong here?
46 Hugo // Nov 11, 2007 at 12:53 am
Ah, the misunderstanding is cleared up.
I don’t say labels are meaningless, they just mean different things to different people, so I don’t use them too often. I assume you have read “The Problem With Diversity”?
Furthermore, all too often, people find their identity in their labels, and this holds them back. Back in 1996 (approx), I did a Myers-Briggs questionaire, which labelled me INTP. I flaunted INTP, said “that’s me”, and never questioned it. Now, I’m not so sure. I suspect it might reflect some of my defense mechanisms that were in place around that time. I wonder if I might not score an “E”… even if I still score an “I”, the point is, it doesn’t mean what I thought it meant. The error of my ways was finding my identity in my understanding of “INTP”. (I = introvert, E = extrovert. I think some of those other letters might be a little biased by defence mechanisms as well, N/S, T/F…)
Anyway, the point is, if you want to use a label, you need to use it in a way that your audience will understand it, I believe. To the Christians, I’m a Christian. To the atheists, I’m an atheist. This will drive people nuts. Especially Christians. So I quote Paul, who “walked the streets of Athens”:
Some more “Paul on labels”, ignore these if the wisdom of the ancients aint your cup of tea:
(Source: NIV)
There is neither Atheist nor Christian, for we are all one…
47 gerhard // Nov 11, 2007 at 12:56 am
again , it would depend on many other of your beliefs. you may consider youself a follower of jesus but are you? do you follow his instructions / teachings? or do you follow a version of the instructions/teachings that suits your infinate wisdom best? i think you called yourself a liberal christian, because of not believing literally in the bible. if you choose to believe in the bible then jesus existed. he must have, it says so.
if you choose not to believe in the bible literally then because the bible is the only evidence of jesus then his existance could come into question. to which degree will you pick and choose? i assume you would remove the ark and creation theory? why because of the lack of evidence? why would you remove jesus , because of the lack of evidence. the evidence however , shows that there were lots of jesus like
miracle workers. who preached similar things at the time, infact it looks like it was popular at the time to do. ok so this brings us back to the jesus being a meme thing. is a belief like that christain?
it’s accepting the building a cult around gandalf the gray. a well meaning gandalf .. but still.. its a gandalf.
did u know that muslims also follow christ?
they may not see him as son of god but believe as a prophet can host the incarnation of god. so what now?
btw, what are your thoughts on the mutually assured distuction of islam and judaism?(u know each considering the evil of the two brothers founding the opposite and forcast their distruction at their hands?)
48 gerhard // Nov 11, 2007 at 1:12 am
i also doubt these tests for those specific reasons.
give me an autism test and i can make it score high or low , depending on my mood and interest. give me a depression test and i can influence it too. you know what they are looking for in most of these tests and then give it to them
answering them honestly depends on the insight you have into yourself and situation and your willingness to do so. if you are unaware of yourself or have a good dose of selfdenial it all comes crashing down.
49 Hugo // Nov 11, 2007 at 1:54 am
I’m ending this conversation now, with this comment. We can talk again on another post, at another time. (You are welcome to make another comment, but I probably won’t. If my self-discipline is strong enough.)
Ever heard of “history”? Go read up about what historians do. (Do you think Alexander the Great ever existed? What about Socrates? Many people learn from Socrates. Does it even really matter whether he existed or not?)
I think I’ve talked about this elsewhere on my blog. Either way, I will talk about it again. “Talk”, hehe. I think I’ve also mentioned somewhere that a well educated theologian or preacher/pastor, should know about the “other messiahs” around the time of Jesus. Yes, I agree that Muslims also follow Jesus. I don’t think they call him Christ though. Did you know you also follow Jesus?
I’m sorry that my tags aren’t good enough to easily find what I’ve already written on this matter. Scholars generally agree Jesus existed. If you’re in the area, I can lend you a book if you want to know more. (What I have at the moment, is “Meeting Jesus Again, for the First Time”, by Marcus Borg.) I’ve only tagged one post with “Marcus Borg” so far. Oi.
If you want to know more directly from me, have patience. I will eventually get to this stuff on this blog. (And you can encourage/direct me through comments on other posts, at a later date.)
Thanks for the discussion, it was interesting!
Oh, and yes, I’ve called myself a Muslim in the past as well. I’m not too certain yet, this is based on a Muslim friend of mine’s explanation of Islam. I’ll check out the Koran next year, or the year after.
50 gerhard // Nov 11, 2007 at 4:35 am
well ? to which degree wil you pick and choose?
that is what you are doing isnt it?
did i mention i am a cross culture kid? i have experianced reality from within several different cultures. i know from experiance that you guys learn a very different history about ww2 and generally different european history than from what i have experianced in central europe.
i can also recommend a good series called ‘a peoples history of .. ‘ they cover history not from the ‘historians’ point of view but rather from what the common people experianced.
Socrates , nice reference. we only know of socrates’s work through plato. Socrates himself did not write because he thought conversation was the only way to get to the truth. We do however also have accounts and records of his being from others.
does it matter if he existed? if you say he existed then it matters. the truth still matters right?
51 gerhard // Nov 11, 2007 at 4:48 am
no, jesus didn’t exist. Everynow and then someone writes a book proclaiming to have finally found proof but then they turn out to be one of what you call , “other messiahsâ€.
52 Hugo // Nov 11, 2007 at 9:07 am
Then why don’t you go and fix Wikipedia? It currently says this:
Must be wrong, as you know better. It’s of course this page: Jesus
53 Hugo // Nov 11, 2007 at 9:10 am
So am I. Join the club.
54 Hugo // Nov 11, 2007 at 9:17 am
So as long as I don’t actually say “he existed”, I can talk about him? I’m okay with that. Whether he really existed or not, doesn’t make any difference, in my opinion anyway. (I used to be a fact fundamentalist, but I’m getting over that.)
55 Hugo // Nov 11, 2007 at 2:21 pm
What I have to offer you at this point is a book or a book recommendation. Another alternative, is patiently reading my blog.
And seeing as you seem to like Dawkins, can I point out that Dawkins also believes Jesus existed? :
http://richarddawkins.net/article,20,Atheists-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
Like I said, Dawkins is less of a fundamentalist than you are (whether you are a fundamentalist or not… we’re talking a sliding scale here…)
Sorry I keep commenting. You are welcome to respond if you want. (No reason why you have to be the one to end it cleanly, it seems I’m the one that’s pressed for time.)
56 gerhard // Nov 12, 2007 at 10:58 am
you need to read dawkins before you make statements like that
:
read this review of his work
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1823,The-truth-in-religion,REVEREND-John-Polkinghorne-Times-Online
read thebertrand russell thing richard refers to in the article you posted
k, so you think christ existed? may i ask you this? aside from manuscripts from which the bibel was built from and hearsay accounts of jesus? is there any proof? where is any anthropology proof ? people like that would have left _some_ proof of existance!! not even records of executions etc? research the nonhistoricity of jesus. ever wonder why we have this kind of proof for other
(faith to back up other faith, which last time i checked something like 90% of the people have?)
people of the time making similar claims to him?
why do you think mithra(earlier) is almost identical to the life of christ?
why do we have more proof of the existance of plato (earlier) than that of jesus and friends? sure platos works may have only been edited for publication hundreds of years after his life, but at least there is anthropology proof that he existed in the place he was supposed to exist.
accepting jesus as a historical figure is a matter of faith (or accepting the meme)
if you recall recently james cameron’s tomb of jesus was made for exactly that reason to bring some form of antholological proof.. which it failed to do misserably too.
57 Hugo // Nov 12, 2007 at 11:20 am
I’ve read some of Polkinghorne’s stuff in the past… I will read that article as soon as I’m done with my thesis. I will also read The God Delusion. Does anyone want to sell me a second-hand copy?
I also have Bertrand Russell on my to-read list. (Check my delicious “toread” tag, it’s becoming a long long list.)
Yes, I think Jesus existed. The rest of your questions? If you want the answer to them, you can research it yourself. There is enough material for you to look at. I have suggested books, and can suggest more. Wikipedia remains a good primer on the basics. If you do not want the answers to those questions, it means you’re only trying to expose flaws in my perspectives, nothing more, and I find that a little condescending or insulting.
I have more important things to do than spoon-feed you, sorry. We can discuss things over a coffee some time. Wherever you are. I’ll come visit if/when I can.
(And yes, I have thorough answers for all your questio