The notion of a Guestbook on a blog is as antiquated as a stylus on a smartphone.
Meta
Recent Comments
- Carolyn Ursabia on Leathercraft Process of America
- akosua on Leathercraft Process of America
- Carolyn Ursabia on What demarcates science from non-science?
- Dennis Nezic on What demarcates science from non-science?
- Pretentious, Self-Righteous Essays » The 2011-12 Toronto Raptors on End of an Era
- Carolyn Ursabia on In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011
- Howtoplayalone on In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens, 1949–2011
- michelle on Ghosts
- Carolyn Ursabia on Aims
- michelle on Aims
- Pretentious, Self-Righteous Essays » Aims on Productivity
- Pretentious, Self-Righteous Essays » Aims on Spoiler
- Pretentious, Self-Righteous Essays » Aims on Maybe
- Pretentious, Self-Righteous Essays » Aims on Risk, Favours, and Misrepresentation
- Pretentious, Self-Righteous Essays » Renaissance on February 14, 2010
- Carolyn Ursabia on Guestbook
- Carolyn Ursabia on Guestbook
- 8bithero on Guestbook
- Carolyn Ursabia on Dearest Daniel
- Dennis Nezic on Dearest Daniel
- michelle on Guestbook
- michelle on Dearest Daniel
- Pat p on Dearest Daniel
- Pretentious, Self-Righteous Essays » Dearest on Where is Carolyn?
- Pretentious, Self-Righteous Essays » Insight on Making It Memorable
Tags
Anti-Realism atheistic banking Blackberry Chuck Swirsky depression Deus Ex Machina Electromagnetic Field Theory empowerment emptiness Entity Realism existentialist filing G20 Ian Hacking lights Math Models of the Atom motivation music NBA Nietzsche novelty optimism pessimism Philosophy Philosophy of Math Philosophy of Science planning poetry Prejudice pride productivity Racism Raptors Realism Science spending spoiler Subway suckerpunch Swirsky Toronto TTC youthfulnessArchives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
I found your blog via a mutual friend, I am Christian myself. You mention that your searching for something and you feel empty. I know you claim your not looking for God. Can I ask, why are you Atheist? Or what led to Atheism choice?
My rationalism.
What is it? Your rationalism.
*sigh*
I am just asking because my sibling enjoys reading Richard Dawkin’s books as well. I just don’t understand why.
Have you read Richard Dawkins’ books?
excerpts from the god delusion
Excerpts can easily be unrepresentative of the whole.
I agree. Excerpts can easily be unrepresentative of the whole. I was just curious as to why you were atheist. That is all.
I answered that. My rationalism.
We are atheist because there is absolutely zero evidence for any of the (fun) fairy tales that the major religions invent. Show me a shred of evidence to backup your existence claims, and I’ll give it a second thought. (Otherwise, for example, why don’t you believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster? (Wikipedia that too.))
Oh, actually, that’s why we’re agnostic. Why we are atheist is because the common definition of “god” is non-sensical. For one quick example, the concepts of omniscience and free will anihilate each other, so right off the bat, none of the main religions (who both “believe” in an omniscient god and free will) work.
The trouble, Dennis, is that anyone who believes in a “God” accepts “faith”, and faith equips believers with a tool that “permits” them to ignore logical inconsistencies.
This is why I hesitate to indulge them.
Katie, it is my rationalism (please look up a dictionary definition) that forbids me from believing in a “God”.
Yep. That abandonment of logic, as you say, really is at the root of this issue. The moment one abandons logic, 2 + 2 = 5. In which case, if Katie is okay with those rules, then Spaghetti Monsters become equally plausible.
So it’s kinda a win-win. Either logic is respected, or hilarity is had — but theism never wins.
Oh Dennis, but hasn’t it? Hasn’t theism already won so much? It has won by sheer volume.
I was raised by an agnostic and a luke warm Christian. In my mid-20′s I felt the way you describe how you feel in your blog. I was just existing, I felt empty, and I didn’t know what to do. I saught God. Now, almost a decade later, my life is great. I feel fulfilled and I’m at peace. You seem to have had debates over this topic many times. I’m not posting on here to debate it with you. I’m just suggesting that you seek him. I guarantee you will find him, your life will be fulfilled and you won’t have to worry or be empty anymore. Just my thoughts.
Take care,
Katie
I gathered that that was your intention when you first wrote “You mention that your searching for something and you feel empty. I know you claim your not looking for God.”
Similarly to Richard Dawkins’ books, you seem to have picked and chosen at what entries of mine to have read. They are not all of inconsolable emptiness. I’ve written numerous reflections, and actually alluded to (but never explicitly stated) why it was that I felt sadly. I’ll have you know further that I am often only inclined to write when I am sad, and not when I am happy (_this_ I have explicitly stated in posts, and you have very conveniently missed it).
You further mention that you were “raised by an agnostic and a luke warm Christian”, but that doesn’t make you either, nor does that you mean you fully understand what each position means. Clearly you don’t because if you understood what it meant to be enlightened enough to stop assuming that there exists a “God”, then you would see why there is no going back. It is like asking a child to believe in Santa Claus after he/she witnessed his/her parents placing the gifts under the tree. To continue to believe after such a revelation would require a betrayal of ones’ senses and logical faculties. I cannot do that. No rational person can do that. If one were agnostic and moved to theism, then my response would be simply “Did that person really understand what it means to be agnostic?”
And what is a “luke-warm Christian”? A moderate Christian? Either you are theist, or you are not. Okay. Christians are a type of theist. Got it. There should not exist such a thing as a “luke-warm” one. You either are, or are not. There exist supreme authorities such as that for Roman Catholics (i.e. The Pope), numerous sacred texts, and canonical practices handed down over the ages. Either as a Christian, you are aware of what these are and adopt them, or you are some perversion of a Christian, where you take bits and pieces of what you personally consider acceptable. Eg. Intolerance of homosexuality? Pff.. I’ll pass, but I’m still a Christian. My response: No – you’re not. You’re a theist who has taken bits and pieces of the Christian practice and molded it to your liking. The interesting part: that’s what almost all sell-professed Christians are.
So, then, what is a Christian? Soren Kierkegaard described him best with his Knight of Infinite Faith. Someone who is aware of and accepts all of the absurdities, and has faith in spite of them, not ignorantly of them.
That all being said, it is not within fairy tales/fictitious characters/mythical stories that I will and have found comfort. I have only found displeasure with the inconsistencies associated with presuming the existence of a “God”, likewise with entertaining the truthfulness of the tales associated with “Him”, and with participating in any of the ritualistic behaviours required of its congregates. Sacred texts should exclusively be studied within an historical context, and not as divinely inspired Scripture.
I am contented by the knowledge that I do not base my beliefs in nonsense. Every day I am fascinated by the complexity of the universe as it is, and as it has come to be – no omnipotent, omniscient beings necessary. I am delighted by the beauty I observe in all of the world’s creatures as they have come to evolve by the evolutionary processes through which they have evolved. I find peace in the elegance of the physical concepts that govern the universe – from the curious quantum level to the full expanse of the nebulous cosmos. It is all truly stunning. And it saddens me deeply when I think of the Christian who robs chance of all of its glory and instead attributes to a fictitious character all of the beauty that surrounds me.
There. That is what I think.
I agree with most of what you said, Carolyn, but your rigid views on what defines a “Christian” keeps irking me, both here and in past conversations, so I’ll say my bit about that. I know very little about Christianity, but I know enough that there are many different types of Christian faith, with different practices and beliefs. For argument’s sake, suppose a Christian of brand X believes most of the beliefs of X but not belief b1. It just so happens that believing in all of X’s beliefs except b1 makes that person technically conforming to Christianity of brand Y. So let’s then say that this person is then of brand Y. But what if not believing in b1 of X makes them fall outside of any Christian brand? Let’s say that they believe in 99% of X’s beliefs but not b1. According to you, this person would not be a “Christian” at all. This is entirely too black-and-white and I must disagree.
I think we need to distinguish between “core” beliefs and “secondary” beliefs. Now I won’t venture so far as to say that all Christians share the same core beliefs. At first glance one might say that such a core belief candidate would be that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for our sins blah blah. But I would imagine that Gnostic Christians wouldn’t care so much for that but rather hold as a core belief that “God” is actually our own internal divinity that we share with all beings etc etc (I don’t know much about Gnosticism so that is probably mis-characterizing their position too). Point being, whether or not someone is Christian of brand X or Y, *as long as they hold on to the core beliefs* of X or Y, they still count as a “Christian”. One good arbiter of this would be their own faith community. I am positive that Christians everywhere (as you yourself say) do not hold *all* of the beliefs of the particular denomination they belong to, but are nevertheless considered to be Christians both by their own standards and, more importantly, by the views of the community they are a part of. If they start violating the core beliefs, however, that may change, but even if they did, as long as they still held themselves to be Christian, I would say that they have every right to be labelled as such. (If you disagree, re-read my first paragraph, viz., the arbitrariness of categorizing Christians based on sets of beliefs that they may or may not entirely hold.) The final arbiter would decidedly not be yourself, a professed atheist, especially as according to your rules pretty much most “Christians” of the world are not Christian at all. Could you imagine if a Christian came along and said, “Actually, there are very few real atheists in the world. Many of them believe in fairy tales like the invisible hand of the market and deregulation of private enterprises — which has been entirely discredited by many economists and world events — yet nevertheless irrationally and religiously hold onto that belief.” ? You would say, of course, “well as a non-atheist you have no right to determine what criteria constitute an atheist or not.” So the same goes for the other way around.
Aside from precise definitions and arguing fine points of beliefs, my own “rough rule of thumb” for accepting someone’s faith as being “Christian” is that they are a theist and include Jesus Christ to be of importance in some (any!) way.
Now the reason why I even wrote all this is to help you out a bit with your arguments.
By holding onto such a rigid definition of what a “Christian” is which, by the way, also seems quite Catholic-centric (do you accept other Christian denominations as being “Christian”?) — you seem to be setting up a straw man that you can then more easily discredit, which weakens your arguments.
I.e., by insisting that Christians *must* necessarily be intolerant and homophobic, just because historically some parts of the Catholic church was like that (which is arguably more of a social, not religious phenomenon), you entirely ignore all the Christians who do not hold these beliefs. It’s like you’re trying to say that *by definition*, all Christians are monsters. But actually, it would be helpful to be able to address those Christians who are moderate, fair, and even kind and compassionate — of which there are quite many — without putting a gun to their heads and saying that they must of consequence be hateful because they claim to be Christian. (!!!)
There was an interesting debate in Toronto a while back — Tony Blair vs. Christopher Hitchens, and though I of course am on Hitchy’s side all the way, I did respect Blair’s assertions that *some* good has come out of Christianity — e.g., charitable work and so on — whereas Hitchens was trying to argue, and with some strain I would say, that *nothing* good whatsoever has come out of Christianity.
It’s unfortunately exactly that kind of rigidity in thinking that atheists blame Christians for having, but that quite often, the atheists have in far greater measure than non-atheists. For myself, though I love Hitchens and would be honoured to have a good tete-a-tete with him, ultimately I feel that Tony Blair the Christian is the more personable fellow and the one I’d rather have a friendly causal chat or hang out with.
OK so we have gone a bit off topic there, but I hope you see my point. You need to be able to address the Tony Blairs of the world without demonizing them, since it doesn’t serve your cause very well!
I see what you’re saying.
What I was originally saying was that a Christian was only one if they met the criteria of Kierkegaard’s /ideal/. I see now that I must admit that not all Christians are ideal Christians. However, a non-ideal Christian ≠ a moderate one. Most plausibly, a non-ideal Christian is an ignorant one…
Okay, so there are various types of Christians with varying, possibly contradicting stances on “secondary” Christian values. So, two people can be “Christian”, adhere to different “Christian” secondary values. For example, the current Roman Catholic stance on homosexuality is that the act is sinful, whereas the United Church of Canada accepts it fully.
This all being said, I have couple of new candidates for what a “Moderate Christian” is: 1. A member of any of the set of denominations that can be (arbitrarily? conveniently?) defined as “moderate”. OR 2. A member of a particular denomination who has picked and chosen at what parts of that denomination’s set of core values to believe in.
If we use 2., then a Moderate Christian is a theist who has picked and chosen at bits and pieces of a particular Christian practice and molded it to his/her liking. The enlightened route would have been to throw out the religion, and pave a new path based on one’s subjective experience with “God”. “Faith” does not exist objectively, anyway. But whatever, I guess.
My battle was never exclusively with Christians. It was with all theists.
//
What I dub “Intolerance of homosexuality” ≠ Homophobia
The former is a prejudice based on the Moral-status of homosexuality within Christianity, and the latter is prejudice based on fear of it.
The current Catholic stance on homosexuality is that the desires are not themselves /sinful/, but the *act* is. I am aware and understand that not all Christian denominations adopt this, and are in fact accepting.
Thus, I concede (only) that I should have said “Pff..I’m still a /*Catholic*/”.
Just some quotes from the Bible:
Lev. 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”1
Lev. 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them”
1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”
//
On the topic of the good that Christianity has done…
I don’t disagree.
In his Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche distinguishes uppercase “M” Morality, from lowercase “m” morality: Master vs. Slave morality. The former being an active evaluation of what is “Good”, while the latter is purely reactive, where what is “Good” is refraining from a set of predetermined “Evil” actions. For him, Lowercase “m” morality, Slave Morality, is Christian.
To Nietzsche, Good and Evil were invented alongside Christian morality. Nobles used the concepts Good and Bad, calling themselves Good, and those beneath them bad (simply lacking in what the noble man sees as making himself superior).
The weak /invented/ the concept of Evil. They called the strong evil for preying on the weak who could not defend themselves and, subsequently, called themselves Good for not acting in such an Evil manner.
Nietzsche’s point is that the weak /needed/ this predetermination of what is “Good” in order to understand it.
Those who are strong engage in capital “M” Morality: Master Morality. They actively evaluate what is “Good”.
So…. Not all persons are strong. A Christian moral compass is a useful guide for those who are not capable of actively evaluating what is “Good”. In this way, … (I hope you see what I’m saying.)
..
“Many atheists [irrationally] believe in the invisible hand of the market and deregulation.” What the fuck? Usually when anarcho-capitalists (the only people worth listening to) speak of this “invisible hand”, they mean it in the context of the non-initiation of violence. I.e. free people shouldn’t be forced to do anything! That is axiomatic, and not “irrationally believed” by us! (Do you or don’t you believe that initiating force against innocent people is wrong?) The phrase never directly says that this hand is the most efficient way to get things done, or anything else, so I’m not sure exactly what you think has been discredited — it is simply a moral position. Get your facts straight, sir. And stop using strawman arguments yourself.
What she said!
I’ll just add that I/we do sympathize with your existentialist suffering. And if fantasy solves that for you, I guess that’s good, as long as the inherent absurdities don’t interfere too much with your life. (An implication of this is you can’t really talk to other people rationally — because you’ll ONLY end up in heated exchanges like this — because only nonsense can ensue if you abandon logic. So, keep it to yourself, and maybe it’ll work out.)
It does suck, no doubt about it. Nobody wants to die/cease existing. Life loves stability and control. Although, like she said, there is still *tonnes* of natural beauty out there, although sure, not quite enough to appease the inevitable injustice that awaits us. (Death.)
Good luck.
Thanks, Dennis.
I actually find quite a bit of joy in knowing that this life has a beginning and an end. It gives it more meaning, and greater reason to make the most of it. That is, if _it_ is the only life we have, then we _need_ to make the most of it.
Further, I find I can live on in the legacy I create. I need not an afterlife, or reincarnation to be immortalized. It will be through my impact on the people around me that I live forever. So, too, does this give more reason to live this life more fully.
Hi Katie,
I respect that you’ve found some peace and happiness through your beliefs — as far as I’m concerned, if it helps you personally, as long as it’s not forced upon others, then good for you!
And I understand that from your own personal experience, you would like to help someone else out by suggesting they do what you did (which assumes that they are even in need of such help in the first place!). But you said that you “guarantee” Carolyn will find God. First, Carolyn has sort of “been there done that”, but even if she hasn’t, I think “guarantee” is too strong of a word.
You must not forget that there are many, many different religions in the world, and each would say the same thing that you are saying, since they’ve “worked” in the experience of their adherents. But this doesn’t mean that there is any objective reality to the contents of their beliefs.
As humans we have evolved with a capacity to infer religious content onto physical reality, which first came about as a practical mechanism to be able to cope with, and find meaning in, the vast world, that is often cruel and unforgiving. (If our early ancestors didn’t kept getting eaten by tigers I’m not so sure that religious thinking would have evolved..)
The content of one’s religious beliefs may differ, but the fact that they are a subjective interpretation of the world’s meaning must always be kept foremost in mind, lest we fall prey to believing that they hold any actual reality outside of our minds.
A good antidote to this is to always and firmly keep in mind the fact that there are many religions, each of which are drastically different, and which are for the most part mutually exclusive in their beliefs. Who is to say who is right, and who is wrong? If you think you are right, well, there are a thousand others who think you are dead wrong. So we need to be careful and not claim privileged access to what we think is “out there” regarding God or what have you.
Meh.
Well said.
I love Jesus! And he loves you too!
>> I love Jesus!
>> And he loves you too!
Well, that’s rather presumptuous…
praise the lord.
beginnings good, endings are more difficult to come to terms with, to accept, therefore i am living forever.
I wish the rapture would happen already. Clean up the mess of Christians mucking up then Earth.
That statement makes you no different from the Christian that think non-Christians will go to Hell.