Spinoza's God is not the god of Christianity at all

it is closer to deism, if anything... really it is not much more than a metaphor for the vastness of our ignorance

12/16/2008 11:45:08 AM

Quote :

"libertarians are permissive to the extent that people's choices do not limit the freedoms of others... religion has consistently failed to leave people the fuck alone and let them choose"

The belief in religion itself isn't inhibiting the freedoms of anyone (except possibly the person subscribing to the belief, but that's another issue entirely). It's when people try to act irrationally based upon what they believe, or when they try to insert their beliefs into government and law, that it restricts the freedom of others.

There are religions and even interpretations of christianity which do not encourage absurd behavior and/or the establishment of a theocracy.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 11:46:26 AM

^^ you stupid sonofabitch, can you backpedal any faster? you said:

Quote :

"way to take Einstein way out of context sorry, pal, he was an ATHEIST"

to which i posted contradictory evidence from 80 fucking years ago...had you bothered to pay the LEAST bit of attention, you would have realized that neither i nor anyone else said that einstein was a christian

i'll tell you what, though...you go wake up einstein and ask him if by "god" he meant a deity or a "metaphor for the vastness of our ignorance"...since you seem to think they're interchangeable

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 11:50 AM. Reason : arrows]

12/16/2008 11:48:22 AM

correct

but the dominant iterations of the largest religions creep their way into every aspect of life and demand that the believer subjugate his/her neighbors to the "will" of their god... this usually results int he creation of some sort of morally inspired legal code to further reinforce the authority of the earthly mechanics (economically and bureaucratically) which support/reinforce/make mandatory the belief in God

^ my man, I'm an atheist and I still believe in METAPHORS

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 11:49 AM. Reason : - ]

12/16/2008 11:48:56 AM

Quote :

"this usually results int he creation of some sort of morally inspired legal code"

THOSE DAMN CHRISTIANS, THINKING RAPE AND MURDER ARE WRONG

Quote :

"my man, I'm an atheist and I still believe in METAPHORS"

obviously...you don't seem to believe in fact-checking or reading comprehension, though

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 11:52 AM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 11:51:46 AM

^ LOL coming from you

12/16/2008 11:56:32 AM

"One of Einstein's most eagerly quoted remarks is 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' But Einstein also said,

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- from The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins

page 15... top of the page

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 11:58 AM. Reason : I have read more than one book... and all the way through - give it a shot sometime!]

12/16/2008 11:57:31 AM

^^ is the source of your LOL from imaginary instances in your head in which i used "facts" that weren't even remotely correct...or when i held you accountable for the words you posted?

i'm confused

^ when did i even once say he believed in a personal god?

lack of belief in a "personal" god != atheist

also, belief in something != religious

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 11:58:26 AM

If you checked facts, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

^^ I was actually looking for that quote, lol.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 12:01 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2008 12:00:28 PM

"A New York rabbi said: 'Einstein is unquestionably a great scientist, but his religious views are diametrically opposed to Judaism.'

God Delusion (p. 16)

12/16/2008 12:01:35 PM

haha, i love how you take einstein's intentionally non-committal quotations and equate it to a certainty in one direction or another

he was VERY careful to make it clear that he did not subscribe to any particular faith...that is not, however, the same as saying "i am an atheist"

please continue to remember, i NEVER said he was religious or believed in god...in fact, all i said is that his quote defines an aspect of my personal beliefs

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 12:03:42 PM

Quote :

"demand that the believer subjugate his/her neighbors to the "will" of their god"

The Bible tells its believers to "make disciples" and ect or those around them. This is by no means anything close to subjugation. The method encouraged by the more rational groups within mainstream christianity involves becoming friends with someone, helping them, raising the issue of religion at an appropriate time, and not pressing the subject if the conversation is leading towards uncomfortable territory.

Just because a lot of fat bible-belters are far too ignorant to even understand their own belief system does not imply that the religion itself encourages "subjugation". Also, don't start quoting more obscure old testament biblical references on me, because frankly I don't subscribe to the bible and thus I haven't studied it that much beyond the more major tenants and overall philosophy. As far as I know, though, there's nothing in the new testament that demands any more extreme form of conversion than what I described above.

Quote :

"this usually results int he creation of some sort of morally inspired legal code to further reinforce the authority of the earthly mechanics (economically and bureaucratically) which support/reinforce/make mandatory the belief in God"

Again, the flaws of believers in this instance do not imply a flaw in the message itself. In fact, I'm pretty certain that chrsitianity itself does not encourage the union of religion and state unless God/Jesus is the head of that state. Also pretty sure that the idea of a god-ruled state is some part of the end of days.

12/16/2008 12:03:54 PM

^ you are an example of what an atheist SHOULD be...confident in your choices, and unconcerned about everyone else unless they push the boundaries of what's appropriate and what's not...in fact, you're an example of what all people should be, regardless of religious affiliation (IMO)

that's encouraging

i suppose the discrepancy lies in what is deemed "appropriate" and what isn't...you don't seem to care about the word "god" on our money, but others are about to crap their pants at the very thought

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 12:06:46 PM

Quote :

"Just because a lot of fat bible-belters are far too ignorant to even understand their own belief system does not imply that the religion itself encourages "subjugation"."

umm... The Roman Catholic Church once ruled much of the world

historically religions have proven themselves too dangerous and constrictive for mass consumption

^ I worry when my system of government begins to favor a religious sect because it means that the oppression of the others is not far off

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ...read history]

12/16/2008 12:13:36 PM

the other problem with your einstein quote is the context...that quote was a direct response to those who SPECIFICALLY claimed he worshiped a judeo-christian god

i mean, i can throw this one out there, too:

Quote :

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

by your logic, this is "proof" that he was not an atheist, but i am willing to concede that, depending on the viewpoint and context, he's just distancing himself from certain TYPES of atheists

or, we can pretend that this is "proof" that he was agnostic...which means he allows that god is unknowable and as such, there is no way to know whether he exists or not

this is such a silly argument, one borne by your determination to disallow a quote that you felt i was using offensively against you

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 12:17:46 PM

Quote :

"The belief in religion itself isn't inhibiting the freedoms of anyone (except possibly the person subscribing to the belief, but that's another issue entirely). It's when people try to act irrationally based upon what they believe, or when they try to insert their beliefs into government and law, that it restricts the freedom of others."

Quote :

"correct...but the dominant iterations of the largest religions creep their way into every aspect of life and demand that the believer subjugate his/her neighbors to the "will" of their god... this usually results int he creation of some sort of morally inspired legal code to further reinforce the authority of the earthly mechanics (economically and bureaucratically) which support/reinforce/make mandatory the belief in God"

Exactly.

chembob, there isn't anything un-libertarian about "shitting on someones' beliefs", as long as by "shitting on" you don't mean "infringing on the equal right to". Expressing my own view that someone's beliefs are bat-shit crazy is well within my first amendment right to free speech. However, forcing atheists, in essence, to acquiesce to the pledge "in god we trust" by having it appear on our currency, should be prohibited under the first amendment establishment clause.

All some of you seem to have is, "Hey, it's not a big deal." Well, if it's not a big deal, then TAKE IT OFF THE MONEY.

12/16/2008 12:18:05 PM

Question for the OP: why should I believe in Christianity over, say, Greek mythology? They're both supported by lots of old stories.

12/16/2008 12:22:13 PM

Quote :

"you are an example of what an atheist SHOULD be...confident in your choices, and unconcerned about everyone else unless they push the boundaries of what's appropriate and what's not...in fact, you're an example of what all people should be, regardless of religious affiliation"

Thanks, but I wouldn't go nearly so far as to call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic and to some degree deist. Almost Christian, but not. If the word "humanist" didn't already have other meanings attached to it, I'd even call myself a "humanist Christian". But then nobody at all would have any clue what the fuck I actually think.

Quote :

"i suppose the discrepancy lies in what is deemed "appropriate" and what isn't...you don't seem to care about the word "god" on our money, but others are about to crap their pants at the very thought"

If our money were currently secular and certain large groups were wanting to spend federal ink to put the words "god" on them, I would be pissed and utterly ashamed to be an American. But I can completely tolerate such an meaningless breach of church-state separation if it's currently the status quo. Again, best to just wait until the majority either agree to take it off or at least don't give enough of a shit to stop it's removal.

Quote :

"The Roman Catholic Church once ruled much of the world historically religions have proven themselves too dangerous and constrictive for mass consumption"

The Roman Catholic Church (and Europe in general during that era) was basically a complete merger of religious authority with actual government power. The whole thing was just another ploy for manipulation of the masses, just as something as asinine as "party affiliation" is used as a ploy for manipulation in the modern day.

As for the second bit, I'd fix it with "historically religions people in general have proven themselves too dangerous and constrictive unthinking for mass consumption". If religion weren't brainwashing and manipulating people, something else would be. In a world without religion and gods, we'd instead have a world full of violent and militant patriots, extremist nationalism, and "god-kings" as heads of state.

Fact is that people are destructive, arrogant, ignorant, lazy, sheep-like fucks just looking for any way to associate themselves with a large group of other stupid fucks around them, and those mass congregations of stupid-fuckery are just begging for some authority figure to bend them to his or her will. Religion in just used as another tool for control, and (IMO) isn't any more dangerous than any of hundreds of other ways people can use to group themselves into something larger than the individual. These are all dangerous manners of thinking, and I agree that they should be fought by whatever few individuals happen to know better, but only speaking against religion simply because it's the primary tool being used right now, just seems silly to me.

Quote :

"All some of you seem to have is, "Hey, it's not a big deal." Well, if it's not a big deal, then TAKE IT OFF THE MONEY."

The problem is that it IS a big deal, in an emotional sense, to a lot of people... or at least it would be were we to remove it. It is, however, irrelevant in the sense of tangible issues, thus advocating strongly for its removal does nothing but to needlessly inflame a lot of dumbasses.

[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 12:32 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2008 12:29:01 PM

^^
Yeah....

I asked

Quote :

"...why pick a god with as much "baggage" as the abrahamic god has? Why not pick something else, some other god? Why not make up your own god to have blind faith in? Why not more than one god?"

and she said

Quote :

"The question being raised here is, why Christ? On notion of faith per se: there are six definitions of sin, and one is chaotic faith. I can believe in anything I feel like it if I trick myself mentally. The fact that Christ is the only way to God is essential, however, because of how God sacrificed Christ for us. No other god could love us so much. "

It almost sounds like she's using christian explanations to explain why she chose christian explanations....

12/16/2008 12:29:38 PM

Quote :

"Thanks, but I wouldn't go nearly so far as to call myself an atheist. I'm agnostic and to some degree deist. Almost Christian, but not. If the word "humanist" didn't already have other meanings attached to it, I'd even call myself a "humanist Christian". But then nobody at all would have any clue what the fuck I actually think."

d'oh, sorry about that...i thought you said you were atheist on a previous page or in another thread...i don't know where that came from

12/16/2008 12:33:10 PM

^^ Yeah... I mean, I could probably find quotes like that for most religions, where they say that theirs is the one true religion.

I just don't understand how people can honestly believe in this mess. It boggles my mind.

12/16/2008 12:36:54 PM

Quote :

"I just don't understand how people can honestly believe in this mess. It boggles my mind."

Being raised in a thoroughly-Christian environment can really hurt one's capacity for thinking outside of that worldview. Just take the song "Jesus Loves Me" for example... sound harmless, but it's actually pretty fucking insidious.

"Jesus loves me, This I know
For the Bible tells me so."

The idea that you can "know" something definitely simply by taking the thing that tells you to "know" it as a basis for all thought... it's fucking batshit, but there's millions of children indoctrinated with it. And if your entire mental and social development revolves around this and similar ways of thinking? Honestly it surprises me that certain Chrisitian groups aren't doing more with it.

12/16/2008 12:41:59 PM

Yeah it surprises me too....

12/16/2008 12:59:52 PM

^I wonder if those kids even know what "fags" means or why it is significant that "god hates fags"... or the relevance of the shuttle disaster and 9/11 and everything else they say is god's judgment upon the fags.

It always looks more like the adults in that "church" make the signs and then just tell the kids to stand around and hold them.

12/16/2008 1:02:21 PM

silly soap box kids

12/16/2008 1:26:28 PM

^^^ form of child abuse in my book.

12/16/2008 1:27:12 PM

^^^
You've obviously never spoken to such a child. Their parents make sure they understand.

Quote :

"...getting extremely butthurt against such a trivial issue is little more than a pathetic sort of internet trolling brought into reality. It's not hurting anyone, so just wait..."

You see, I don't think it's trivial. I think it's blatantly unconstitutional. In fact, we should just change it from "In God We Trust." to "There Is No God." It has the same number of letters, so we won't have to redesign the layout of any coins or bills.... I don't suppose any of you would have a problem with that change, would you?

12/16/2008 1:30:06 PM

^ I'd be fine with that change. Or just take teh phrase off completely, no sweat off my back.

12/16/2008 1:32:16 PM

It should say "In Zeus We Trust".

12/16/2008 1:35:29 PM

Quote :

"You see, I don't think it's trivial. I think it's blatantly unconstitutional. In fact, we should just change it from "In God We Trust." to "There Is No God.""

see, I agree that it's blatantly unconstitutional, but the fact remains that removing it, given the current religious status of american society, would do FAR more harm than good. I'm not explaining again how media shitstorms work and why we don't need to create them when there is virtually no tangible negative effect coming from an issue (or non-issue, in this case).

Also, changing it to "There is no god" would be just as unconstitutional as leaving it, regardless of the effects on society. The state declaring with total certainty that god does not exist? Honestly, that sounds like a constitutional idea to you? Even if it isn't blatantly unconstitutional, it still goes against the spirit of having a secular state.

Now, if we changed it to "God Is Irrelevant", that would make sense and be in line with a secular state. Or, better yet, just remove the phrase completely.

Again, though, that argument is best left for a day and age in which altering the god-status of the currency would NOT do more social harm than good.

12/16/2008 1:50:47 PM

I want to throw another word out there

antitheist

don't confuse atheism with antitheism

atheism is the lack of belief in a supreme being
antitheism is the resistance to any concept of a supreme being... kind of an evangelical atheism

12/16/2008 2:03:17 PM

I am glad this stupid-ass thread died.

12/16/2008 8:13:10 PM

I am sticking by my claim that Einstein was an atheist

12/16/2008 8:17:14 PM

Most mathematicians find themselves believing in God when they find that too much is coincidental, everything fits together so well.

12/16/2008 8:27:00 PM

most schizophrenics, too

12/16/2008 8:34:53 PM

^^^

It's not just your claim; it's general knowledge among the educated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein#Religious_views

12/16/2008 8:39:32 PM

Wikipedia?

come on... Wikipedia is about as intellectually reliable as the Bible

j/k

but seriously, the Bible was edited a whole lot by a whole lot of people with differing goals

12/16/2008 8:41:21 PM

why should i care what an inexperienced Christian who is self-taught has to say about God, Jesus or religion in general.

o nm. i see the OP has left the thread.



[Edited on December 16, 2008 at 8:52 PM. Reason : ]

12/16/2008 8:51:33 PM

Yeah, we crucified her.

12/16/2008 9:57:52 PM

Any more questions that I can try to answer?

12/21/2008 8:32:53 PM

What if God was one of us?

12/21/2008 8:50:43 PM

Just a Slav like one of us?

12/21/2008 8:52:38 PM

"slav" ?

lol

12/21/2008 8:57:25 PM

Oh holy shit. It's how I always heard it in my head as a kid.

[Edited on December 21, 2008 at 8:59 PM. Reason : Just googled the lyrics...]

12/21/2008 8:58:41 PM

Quote :

"Any more questions that I can try to answer?"

Yes, please.

I originally asked:

Quote :

"...why pick a god with as much "baggage" as the abrahamic god has? Why not pick something else, some other god? Why not make up your own god to have blind faith in? Why not more than one god?"

Also, fatcatt316 asked:

Quote :

"Question for the OP: why should I believe in Christianity over, say, Greek mythology? They're both supported by lots of old stories."

You replied:

Quote :

"The question being raised here is, why Christ? On notion of faith per se: there are six definitions of sin, and one is chaotic faith. I can believe in anything I feel like it if I trick myself mentally. The fact that Christ is the only way to God is essential, however, because of how God sacrificed Christ for us. No other god could love us so much."

The problem is, that doesn't really answer the question(s). I don't know anything about this "six definitions of sin" or "chaotic faith"; in fact, that sounds like christian stuff -- I'm not asking for that. You can't answer a question about how and/or why you chose christianity over all other choices by referring to christian stuff, because then how and/or why did you choose that?? You see? You can't use things like "Christ is the only way to God", "God sacrificed Christ for us", or "No other god could love us so much" to justify why or how you came to believe those things. I'm asking: before you chose to be (or otherwise ended up,) christian, what happened such that you didn't choose to be (or otherwise end up,) something other than christian? (Remember, you can't use any ideas derived from your belief in christ or the christian god to explain why or how you got those beliefs, and not any beliefs in, say, vishnu or shiva.)

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 2:54 AM. Reason : ]

12/22/2008 2:52:21 AM

^on top of what you're saying i think something that really needs to be mentioned in this thread (if it hasn't already) is suspension of disbelief. I guess it's usually used in terms of art or fiction but applies really well to religion. Here is a short definition:

Quote :

"Suspension of disbelief or "willing suspension of disbelief" is an aesthetic theory intended to characterize people's relationships to art. It was coined by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1817. It refers to the willingness of a person to accept as true the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic or impossible. It also refers to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. According to the theory, suspension of disbelief is a quid pro quo: the audience tacitly agrees to provisionally suspend their judgment in exchange for the promise of entertainment. These fictional premises may also lend to the engagement of the mind and perhaps proposition of thoughts, ideas, art and perhaps theories."

I think this works really well for religion, where the medium is the religion, and faith is the suspension of disbelief. I think the vast majority of people have faith in their religion and belief in a greater power because it makes them feel good, and gives them a greater purpose in life. Most religious people do not question their religion constantly and accept it as the truth in order to live a good life.

They don't question it because to question it would ruin the whole idea of it. Suspending their belief in the real world and having faith in a greater power is what makes religion religion. All this arguing about whether religion can somehow be justified or explained is ridiculous and defeats the whole purpose of it. I mean think about when the books of the bible were written. Many things could not be explained so stories and ideas about the afterlife were created to reassure people and give them hope.

True faith back then came from believing in what could not be explained, and today true faith apparently comes from believing in what was written back then. It seems kinda funny to me and i have no issue with it but you can't really argue faith, it just doesn't work. Plus if it makes people live a happy life then leave them to it.

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 3:28 AM. Reason : .]

12/22/2008 3:25:48 AM

12/22/2008 5:04:36 AM

12/22/2008 8:56:12 AM

^^^^There is no explaining, you're right.

Communication with the Holy Spirit brought me to Christ.

Oooh, I'm gonna get flamed for this one.

12/22/2008 9:08:12 AM

Are you parents christian?

Describe this "communication"? Do you understand that I am skeptical of that?
If you hear voices, that is not god, that is you -- suffering from schizophrenia.

How did you know this communication wasn't coming from zeus or osiris?
How did you know it was the "Holy Spirit"?
How did you know what the "Holy Spirit" was?

Also, instead of simply saying "There is no explaining", could you [please] address each question or point I put forward? There must be some explanation as to why you're a christian and not something else...

Quote :

"I think this works really well for religion, where the medium is the religion, and faith is the suspension of disbelief"

I agree. That is very a good fit.

[Edited on December 22, 2008 at 9:19 AM. Reason : ]

12/22/2008 9:09:08 AM