Some of you who read this blog have met Veracious poet. In his latest post he writes
Note that, I am not a Christian apologist. My position is only a philosophical position. I don’t attend any church or feel the need to make senseless noise in the name of worship. I think that is lunacy. But, other than ascribing events and existence to random chance, I simply hold the view that there is an entity higher than man, who originated the universe.
and
“Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.”
which only means if this Jesus fellow graced the earth, he never wanted to be understood. He was a lunatic and a madman, a lowlife. But I digress.
Instead of honestly admitting his religiosity, he hides behind a cover of pseudo-intelligentsia or philosophy while openly arguing for creationism.
- Because we don’t know why death comes when it does, it must be the work of an intelligent designer. What does it help an infinitely perfect being to create beings that die and decay? Was this its attempt at humour? Was god bored?
- Evolution through natural selection? Designed by intelligent designer, blessed be it!
- Powers of human imagination? Blessed be the intelligent designer!
- Animal instinct? Blessed be the intelligent designer. What, if we may, is instinct? Is this not the same in human beings as it is in brutes?
- We have different food sources, blessed be the intelligent designer!
- Laws of planetary motion. The universe is fine tuned blah blah.
- Someone must control the water levels. It is impossible to imagine that these are just natural processes. God must be involved, but hey, I am no goddite, I am a philosopher!
- You can breath, blessed be the intelligent designer.
- Sex, thank god!
Why leave out cancer, wasn’t this the work of the intelligent designer. Slow torturous and painful way to die.
What about the claws that enable lions to maul gazelles, intelligent designer, blessed be he.
Why forget the plague? Or typhoid fever. The blessed intelligent designer took no chances. He included in his designs safeguards to ensure death would come. It maybe painless like waking up dead or syphilis.
Don’t you find earthquakes and tsunamis beautiful. You vile atheists! The height of the wave and the destruction that follows it, how can you not praise the intelligent designer for his ways.
Heat waves. How intelligently designed. They reach just the appropriate temperatures to kill humans and brutes alike. Blessed be the intelligent designer.
Why should anyone cover their veiled attacks on atheism behind claims of being ignorant of why things are the way they are. I readily admit I don’t know why shit is, but I am not going to quickly jump into conclusions that would in themselves need explanations. That would be uncalled for and dishonest.
There is nothing wrong in accepting one is religious. It is hard to admit one has been duped. But it does you no good to pretend to be philosophical when you are not acting the part.
Random thoughts 
Reading some of his posts, he is obviously a christian by his free usage of phrases derivative of biblical passages, especially from the nt. But is not honest or courageous enough to admit it because he doesn’t want to have to admit it
LikeLike
Since when did Christians lack courage to admit their religiosity? Their good book expects them to. He is a pretender
LikeLike
Well, in my opinion… that one is as fake as someone who tries to say ID is not just biblical creationism repackaged. He’s pretending his philosophy isn’t just christianity in disguise.
LikeLike
He is a fake. It’s not the first time I have called him out on it anyway
LikeLike
Ah… I wasn’t too interested in what he writes
LikeLike
he is a humanist who believes only god can solve humanity’s problems
LikeLike
Whatever god that is of course. But it’s interesting he only uses reference to NT passages
LikeLike
He is a strange fellow, you will reckon. I hope he pays a visit soon
LikeLike
Yes ID is the classic ‘God of the gaps’. The gaps are smaller than in the past thus “God’s” role is altered accordingly.
LikeLike
The gaps are given a new name
LikeLike
Creases. God of the creases.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or defend what he believes I mean
LikeLike
This fellow seems to be a classic Christian who doesn’t want to have responsibility for his religion and what it says. He wants to claim he is not an apologist because he thinks this will cause people not to call him on his baseless claims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
maybe he thinks his post will only be read by theists. I don’t know why he tags it atheism though. He is doing apologetics and claiming to be doing nothing of the sort
LikeLike
Evolution through natural selection? Designed by intelligent designer
That’s one of my arguments for TOOAIN!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I should read my copy of TOOAIN
LikeLike
Yes, you should… We need evangelicals
LikeLike
I prefer NOT to read things then offer 7 page essays on why they suck because I don’t agree with what I haven’t read. Doing this allows me to vent my narcissistic, self-aggrandizing personality whilst tossing insults at the author of what I’m critiquing. I review films this way too. It’s a helluva a lot easier than watching movies and reading books. I reserve all my energy for the critique. Smart, aren’t I?
LikeLiked by 2 people
You cracked me up with this over on the TOOAIN posts. Superb!
LikeLiked by 1 person
The idjits I was referring to with these comments on your blog just wrote LONGER responses to your thesis after I wrote them, even though they clearly had no idea what they were critiquing. I worked with a guy like this. He was theist, of course, and ready to aggressively argue about anything others said. He’d argue fiercely about why a movie was good or not though he hadn’t seen it and had no intention of ever seeing it. He constantly talked about how awful and ignorant Richard Dawkins was though he never read anything by him. I find this type of blowhard to be too annoying for words. I also find such people to be very entertaining at times. Watching idjitry in motion is fun.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The funniest thing is, most of them don’t even get. They have no idea what you’re going on about, and that’s hilarious!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know. Awesome, eh? My fav on your blog was Bobbie. I get a smile every time I think of ’em.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He used to drive Noel crazy
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have to tell Noel about the porn on Bobbie’s computer. Might make him smile. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
There was a guy who even thought you Muslim. Idjits I tell you
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very smart. I should start doing it too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“What does it help an infinitely perfect being to create beings that die and decay? Was this its attempt at humour?”
A perfect being creates beings to die and decay because it likes watching things suffer. It was not an attempt at humor, but porn. The perfect being gets its rocks off by watching pain and suffering and all that lead up to it, even goodness and hope because these, after all, eventually end in suffering and death. TOOAIN is truly the only god that could realistically exist, even if he, like all other gods, does not. $Amen$ The four words no theistic apologist, or theistic apologist denying he’s a theistic apologist, can say: “I do not know.”
LikeLike
Is this soft or hard porn?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bloody. Very bloody porn. God is, after all, one sick bastard.
LikeLike
One very sick bastard. You missed very
LikeLike
“Because we don’t know why death comes when it does, it must be the work of an intelligent designer.” – Aside from disease and natural disasters, death comes to all because when cells replicate, many make erroneous or incomplete copies of themselves. The accumulative effect of this is that body parts wear out and ultimately fail.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The work of the intelligent designer, blessed be she! It is the designer that makes the cells die or copy improperly
LikeLike
Actually, I had an idea for life extension some years ago – freeze the stem cells of a newborn, clone them, then as the child matures into an adult, reintroduce them to the adult as perfect copies of the original cells, repeat as needed.
LikeLike
This should be tried. Or would it be considered unethical?
LikeLike
How could it be, it’s your own stem cells.
LikeLike
I may live for long to see all my relations die or end up being friends with those I don’t like 🙂
LikeLike
I will make it brief and concise: I always encourage people to have faith in something, being it a god, a tree, a rock, or a totem etc., something of spiritual value. All self realization begins with faith in something. I didn’t know that atheism now means a rejection of all beliefs. By evolution, I mean only microevolution, as that is what seems plausible to me.
I sometimes quote the bible only as litetature, but I would’nt call myself a christian, just a theist. I believe in humanistic values and in objective morality and personal “godism.”
Also I don’t pretend to be anything other than myself. So I’m not faking anything. I always speak plainly about my belief system. And I always pointed out that atheism is a dead end philosophy.
LikeLike
You seem to not know what atheism is. It is a lack of belief in deities. It says nothing about earthquakes or your girlfriend. Nothing.
Faith, how is blind belief a virtue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So why reject humanistic values such as kindness or charity. Why call it a veneer? What has the lack of belief in deities got to do with virtue?
LikeLike
Who rejected kindness? Are you replying to the right post?
LikeLike
O Mak, have you not, on this very blog, argued against charity before? Telling us that there is nothing good or bad? Should I refresh your memory?
LikeLike
And in case you suffer memory lapse, in the discussion with Barry on the same thread I admitted I could be wrong. You can bring up the thread.
LikeLike
“I always encourage people to have faith in something” – Why?
“All self realization begins with faith in something.” – Maslow would disagree with you, unless that ‘something’ included ones self.
LikeLike
Something, including but definitely not restricted to oneself. Faith is an extension of the “self.”
LikeLike
Ah, the micro-macro mambo! An advertisement that the author has no clue what evolution is.
Exercising faith-based belief is a guaranteed means to fool one’s self. The evidence for this claim is overwhelming. Just look at Toronto Maple Leafs fans; this the year, they’re almost sure. Suggesting that we all need to exercise this method to be virtuous is not just foolish but borders on the asinine.
Considering an intelligent designer as a legitimate explanation for life here on Earth means considering the morality of an agency that designs a prey/predator system predicated on suffering and then imposes it on everyone and everything. Gee, thanks. How very nice. How divine!
A philosopher who claims non belief in Oogity Boogity! exercising POOF!ism to be a ‘dead end’ philosophy has at the very least earned the title of a sophisticated believer who turns a non fish into another kind of fish by using obfuscating, mewling, and apologetic terms. How perceptive piercing the veil of the transcendental this way. The nuance for this ‘black is another kind of white’ approach, you see, is deep… so deep in fact that it must philosophically sophisticated. That’s the only approach I can think of that supposedly turns bullshit and broken reasoning into an intellectual virtue. The Force is strong with this one.
LikeLike
In his defense, he argues, the people are stupid and need to believe in oogity boogity while he rejects those same beliefs. He confuses me.
LikeLike
My godless fellow, you have your reasons for believing what you believe, likewise, I have mine. What has race got to do with this?
What is intelligence anyway? proving that all theists are fools. I always say that he who can find a way to immortalize himself is the most intelligent.
LikeLike
You are conflating belief with faith. That’s a philosophical no-no.
I made no reference to race.
I mentioned foolishness, which is expanding credulity into gullibility. I mentioned nothing about intelligence… immortalized or not.
Other than that, did you want to make any comment about the criticisms I made regarding your comment or just wave them away.
LikeLike
“I always say that he who can find a way to immortalize himself is the most intelligent.” hmmm, so any idiot who does something to be remembered is the most intelligent? That certainly put a lot of horrible people in line for most intelligent per VP.
LikeLike
“hmmm, so any idiot who does something to be remembered is the most intelligent? That certainly put a lot of horrible people in line for most intelligent per VP.”
Hitler, Caligula, and Atilla the Hun leap to mind —
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yes, those were the most intelligent
LikeLike
By immortality, I literally mean eternal life which clearly no one has been able to apply his or her intelligent to gaining. So we are all dumb.
LikeLike
Well, since there is no evidence that there is any “eternal life” at all, there is no way to gain it. It’s rather amusing to see you claim that everyone dumb because we can’t gain something that doesn’t exist. One could also say that since no one has been able to apply intellect to gaining magically fixed shoes from the fairies means everyone is dumb.
Your arguments are little different from any theist who wants to claim that he’s the only smart person, with not a scrap of evidence to show this to be true.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Prior to our coming into this world what evidence was there (for us) that a world outside the womb existed? Yet we all have arrived and have grown here on earth.
Again, what evidence is there of the existence of “future time” since we are always in the present. Yet we all believe and make plans into the “future.” To me, everlasting life is possible although there is no evidence as yet.
LikeLike
prior to your existing, you had no idea of the world. You can believe whatever you want to believe, that, my friend, is your right
LikeLike
It’s the same with the hereafter. Both theists and atheists therefore have no exclusive claim to truth or rightness. Each could fill the void with whatever they want.
LikeLike
You have no right to claim a hereafter.
LikeLike
Yes but as far as “the self” is concerned, a belief in the hereafter makes one happier here.
LikeLike
Makes you happier maybe. I have no such belief
LikeLike
Not just happier but it harmonizes one’s thoughts and feelings and creates meaning in life.
LikeLike
You and I are worlds apart in thought. You have made belief in woo a virtue. You think it makes you seem or look clever.
LikeLike
Happiness is the ultimate.
LikeLike
Avoiding pain or suffering is the ultimate. Happiness is a fleeting sensation
LikeLike
Hahaha…..happiness is not a fleeting sensation. It’s real. You will know happiness when you repress your ego and start accommodating the weakness of others, especially women. One of man’s main source of happiness is his family and social relations.
LikeLike
You have gone off the rails completely in your woo belief.
Suffering/ pain is real. Happiness is what is described negatively.
Humanity’s main source of happiness is to live a life free of suffering.
LikeLike
I have not gone off, my friend. A life completely free from suffering is not possible in this fallen world. What one can do is to neutralize suffering or pain with occasional happiness. Unless by “suffering” you mean something different.
LikeLike
I didn’t say a life free of suffering. I said a happy life is one with little suffering
LikeLike
“You will know happiness when you repress your ego and start accommodating the weakness of others, especially women.”
Explanation for this sentence, please. Or are you just trolling now?
LikeLike
You know the maxim, in the absence of good argument or evidence, you can wow them with BS. That is how he does it.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why everyone is being so vicious to Poet, can’t you just refute him amicably?
LikeLike
We will try to be nice
LikeLike
Some aren’t trying very hard.
LikeLike
I encounter VP’s attitudes and projections almost daily in my hospice work and it causes a very great deal of suffering on those who are most vulnerable at a time when they are least able to suck it up and take it.
I have zero tolerance treating such pernicious beliefs ‘nicely’ because they deserve nothing but ridicule and mocking, which cannot help but reflect poorly on those who continue to callously spew them under the disguise of New Age woo and some metaphysical ‘wisdom’. It’s neither. It’s bullshit and need to be treated in the same way we would any pernicious ideas that cause harm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That, I can’t disagree with – I guess I wasn’t clear, I was referring to his belief in some kind of universal spirit, to which opinion, he’s entitled.
LikeLike
It would be intolerance on my part to refuse a person the right to believe as they are convinced.
LikeLike
Of course he can believe whatever he wants… I believe my sports team might defy reality and is not really having yet another disastrous season and might even win the championship. But I don;t try to pass this off as ‘knowledge’ because it isn’t. It’s unreasonable hope that I maintain in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So, like I should about my NFL team, VP should reasonably expect to receive relevant criticism for any ‘knowledge’ claims he tries to use to support his unreasonable hope. After all, if we could ‘know’ anything about this spirit he believes exists as if a causal agency in reality, none of us would have to ‘believe’ anything about it – the act of belief that VP then tries to pass of as a virtue rather than the vice it is in any other human endeavor – but show us how to come to this supposed knowledge honestly and openly and critically without any need for woo and metaphysical rationalizations. Sadly…
God’s season is over and He has yielded a losing record that eliminates any possibility of post-season play. But maybe next year…
LikeLike
So no ring –?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll shred an obnoxious theist as quickly as anyone —
— but I don’t see that Poet conforms to that description. Yes, he’s saying things that most of us don’t believe, but he’s not being obnoxious about it.
LikeLike
It means happiness occurs when one pawns part of his narcissism and accepts others.
LikeLike
I have often said that the shortest path to finding oneself, lies in losing oneself in the service of others.
LikeLike
I heard you say that just last Tuesday.
LikeLike
Proof positive, I have often said it!
LikeLike
Is there a longer path 🙂
LikeLike
Yes, but it involves Google Maps.
LikeLike
I have gotten lost while using Google maps. It was not my fault
LikeLike
LikeLike
I wish I had said that
LikeLike
wow. if we were fully formed human beings in the womb, there’s plenty of evidence of an outside world. fetuses react to the outside world and if they were sapient at that time, there is nothing to stop them from figuring things out.
Plenty of evidence of the future since we constantly live through it as it becomes the present.
Again, no evidence for your delusion that there is eternal life. Is it possible? Perhaps. Is it probable? not even remotely. As I state before, you seem to want to pretend that you and only you have magic secret truths, just like any theists. You just come off more as a postmodern twit.
LikeLike
“wow. if we were fully formed human beings in the womb, there’s plenty of evidence of an outside world.”
What evidence is there for the baby?
LikeLike
ROFL. oh my. Hmmm, well, the baby hears the outside world, the baby feels that there is something beyond him. Have you ever been around a pregnant woman, VP?
Before we go any further, what sources would you accept as evidence? Medical texts? anti-choice people who insist that fetuses feel?
LikeLike
You seem not to understand me. What I mean is that if we demand evidence for the existence of the hereafter, we will be behaving like babies not believing in the existence of a world outside the womb.
LikeLike
Wow, nice attempt to avoid having to admit that your claim fails. It’s great to see you now insisting that I somehow misunderstand you when you demanded I give you examples and those examples show your claims were wrong. Now, if I misunderstood you, this would have been mentioned *before* you demanded evidence.
Nice fail there, VP.
LikeLike
“…we will be behaving like babies not believing in the existence of a world outside the womb.” – Actually, the fact that a baby is inside another living being, is proof of existence of a world outside the womb. Not really a valid analogy, Poet, but worth an ‘A’ for effort.
LikeLike
If we pick it from the perspective of the baby, it simply does not know. Therefore if it adopts a skeptical attitude it denies itself of the knowledge and experience of that world outside the womb.
LikeLike
Your claim goes against what we do know, that babies know and react to things outside of the womb.
It’s rather amusing that you want to claim that a baby can’t know anything and then somehow said baby can adopt a skeptical attitude. How does this work VP?
Having a skeptical attitude doesn’t deny knowing or experience at all. If something does exist, then being a skeptic doesn’t prevent it from existing and being known and experienced. If something doesn’t exist, then skepticism will show that. That is the problem for you isn’t it, VP? You want people to blindly accept things because if they question, then you aren’t the special snowflake you want to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With all due respect, answers to your questions (and many others) are readily available via a quick search on the Internet or a visit to your local library. Failure to employ those resources to your full advantage demonstrates a lack of initiative. And pretending they don’t exist demonstrates a lack of integrity.
LikeLike
Those answers failed to convince me. So I have decided to proceed to my own conclusions with an awareness that I may be right or wrong.
LikeLike
why would someone have faith in a rock? will it do something that is not rock-like? Faith is useless, believing in what doesn’t exist, hoping for magic that will never happen. Exactly what self-realization is and what it has to do with faith is something you will have to explain, VP, or it only sounds like the usual deepities that TrueChristians spout when they have no answers.
Evolution is evolution, micro and macro happen the same way, so sorry, you can’t have your cake and eat it too by using willful ignorance of something you avoid understanding but have no problem attacking.
It is unsurprising that you want to invent your own religion. Rather handy when avoiding the problems of established religions which all fail.
Funny how atheism isn’t a philosophy at all, it’s a conclusion based on facts. But do tell us how atheism is a philosophy. I shall guess that you’ll try to conflate it with a bunch of real philosophies and miss the fact that atheists don’t agree on those at all.
LikeLike
“Evolution is evolution, micro and macro happen the same way”
(Click on image to enlarge)
LikeLiked by 3 people
I like that
LikeLike
Self realization is the fufilment of one’s capacities, which leads to happiness. You will agree with me that this is one of mankind’s ideal wishes. But you cannot fulfill your capacities if you don’t believe in anything. It’s your faith (not necessarily religious) that leads you to wherever you want to go.
I’m not disputing the process of evolution but rather its generalization too far. Organisms evolve but I believe all maintain distinct traits and stay within their species. Man is man, ape is ape.
Facts are empty without intepretations. Atheists don’t group but their atheism does inform their attitude to life. Atheism is a practical philosophy.
Why not? If I have the means I will create an authentic, loving and peaceful religion. I think that’s what will make the world a better place.
“Why would someone have faith in rocks?” Sometimes the questions you atheists ask shows how bad you are at psychology. Ever wondered why the primitives put loads of effort into creating the pyramids, the sphynxes or the stonehenge? Or what mortivates them?
It does not matter what the will is aimed at. The will only extends when it aims at an object. In psychology, everything in this world is an object. So yes! even finding real love requires some faith.
LikeLike
Oh, I can believe in things with no problem. Having faith e.g. belief in things unseen as theists define it, in things isn’t the same at all, as has been pointed out to you. So, belief in the baseless claims of religion isn’t required at all to be happy or content.
You are indeed disputing the process of evolution, but it’s rather interesting that now you claim you aren’t. What you believe in your ignorance means little. You have nothing to support your claims; there is plenty to show that apes and man are primates and came from a common ancestor. It seems that you simply wish to be a special snowflake and pretend you and only you know how the universe works. Unfortunately for you, reality shows that is not true at all.
Facts are facts and do not need your “interpretations”. Atheism is not a philosophy. It’s always nice to see you try to move the goalposts and now insist it is a “practical” philosophy. It is not. It is a conclusion and that can indeed inform one’s philosophy.
Your religion is no more or less authentic than any other religion. Yep, it’s religion and yep, it doesn’t reflect reality just like the others. You want to falsely claim your religion is true and there is nothing to support that claim.
Wow, nice baseless claim that somehow all atheists are somehow bad at psychology. You make the claim and then fail to support it. Why did ancient peoples create the pyramids? Because they believed in religions that weren’t true hoping to influence the universe and they were afraid of death. We have no complete idea why sphynxes were carved or why the stones of Stonehenge were moved. It seems to be, again, hope that they could influence or at least predict the universe and appease their gods that didn’t exist.
You sp0ut more nonsense, the usual attempt by a theist to baffle with bullshit. The will “extends”? In psychology every thing is an object? Really, I do wonder where you come up with this stuff.
I’ve found real love and nope, no faith needed. Just a lot of hard work and I have plenty of evidence it exists.
LikeLike
When you say, “something of spiritual value,” Poet, you sound like you’re speaking of something supernatural, which many of us simply don’t recognize as existing. Or perhaps you have a different definition of “spiritual” —
LikeLike
There always is a woo definition of spiritual
LikeLike
When one perceives only with one’s consciousness, one is not likely to perceive the “spiritual” or the supernatural. In spite of the progress of science, many things in this physicalist world cannot be explained because they evade consciousness. So I believe there is an existence beyond the apparent – something metaphysical which we know naught of.
LikeLike
ignorance of a particular aspect of nature isn’t warrant to introduce other unknowables. That is not only unwarranted but as well as unscholarly
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So I believe there is an existence beyond the apparent – something metaphysical which we know naught of.”
Of course you are entitled to your beliefs, and I can accept that there is much of which we know naught, but that doesn’t automatically mean that those missing bits of knowledge involve the metaphysical, nor does it mean that they are unknowable, just that they haven’t yet become known.
LikeLike
Whatever height of knowledge we attain, even after another 3.8 billion years from now, there will still be something of the unknowable.
LikeLike
That’s the fun of it – humans are explorers, we strive for the difficult to reach. I would hate to live in a world in which there is nothing left to discover. Our brains would atrophy.
LikeLike
Welcome to the world of woo; anything you want to believe in is welcome under this kind of magical thinking. Leave reality at the door and let’s pretend we’re thoughtful and deep when we’re neither; this is a recipe to turn credulity into gullibility.
LikeLike
What is reality? Your reality or mine?
LikeLike
I think that is his trademark while at the same time claiming to have eschewed a belief in woo
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know if Veracious poet is being disingenuous or not, but his statement is consistent with deism – a non-denominational or non-religious theistic belief which was quite common during The Enlightenment.
LikeLike
I think his statements are consistent with those of a sophisticated theologian
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry I got here late, just trying to catch up on reading (working overtime a lot lately).
Anyway, this is a great post.
“Why leave out cancer, wasn’t this the work of the intelligent designer. Slow torturous and painful way to die.”
god has a particularly sadistic sense of humor; his hatred for his own creation seems immeasurable.
LikeLike
Tell me my friend, do you teach philosophy? Your posts on various philosophical subjects are usually well written and reasoned. They are nothing compared to the armchair philosophy some of us attempt.
Don’t you agree. A perfectly loving god with the most painful ways to kill its most loved creations
LikeLike
I had professional training in Rhetoric, but did spend a year afterward studying philosophy; I don’t consider myself more than an over-educated amateur.
Even without considering the ills of the universe, a perfectly loving god would not wish to be worshiped – that’s a tyrant-father’s demand arising from insecurity. So the mandate to worship itself precludes both perfection and love.
The belief in god is largely incoherent. Believers emphasize “faith” to gloss this over (although Hinduism embeds this incoherence in the design of its many gods and the cosmological narrative of a sleeping ur-god dreaming all the others).
Unfortunately, then comes the question, why bother? As one who spent a great deal of time trying out various religions to fill up the space where I was taught ‘faith’ ought to be, I must insist that one can waste an awful lot of life’s precious moments chasing phantoms.
The reason I still identify as a secular Buddhist (Secular because I believe in neither mysticism nor re-incarnation) is because the Buddha taught that pain was naturally embedded in life, and that there were practicable means of alleviating pain. Pain is certainly something real, alleviating it is good thing, and having something to do to achieve that seems to be a worthy expenditure of time.
I’m not a hard materialist or one who accepts ‘scientism;’ but I do believe that this world is the only one we’ve got, and so the only one that matters. If gods have anything to do with that, I see no sign of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“a perfectly loving god would not wish to be worshiped – that’s a tyrant-father’s demand arising from insecurity” – But not an unlikely attitude of a 3rd millennium BCE nomad.
“Unfortunately, then comes the question, why bother?”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nomadic desert life required many children, partly due to the mortality rate, but primarily for use as free labor – the boys as goatherds, the girls as cooks, maids, and for trading to other tribes in exchange for alliances – both required strict obedience to the Alpha Male. It’s not difficult to see how they might have imagined their god to feel similarly.
Sadly, for some, not much has changed in 4000 years.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, for some, not much has changed in 4000 years- which is quite unfortunate
LikeLike
If the human mind can’t comprehend god, then gods are not meant for humans- Jean Messlier [I have paraphrased]
LikeLike
Thanks very much. This is actually more than what I had hoped for.
I have not studied Buddhism much.
But avoidance of suffering/ pain is a worthy expenditure of time. One of my favourites, Schopenhauer says suffering is the positive thing, not happiness which is absence of suffering. So a good life is one which we suffer the least.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pain and death are an integral part of life. We must therefore submit ourselves when our time is due. Our existence at this moment does not in anyway confer privileges or rights on or to us. One cannot say I was created by God, God is in charge of the universe, therefore it’s God’s duty to make me happy, irrespective of the misdeeds of my predecessors. Disasters and diseases are sometimes caused by irresponsible lifestyle not God or the gods. All the progress we have made us a human society originated from our pain and suffering. “Good” often but not always, comes out of evil.
LikeLike
Submitting ourselves would mean we have a choice on weather to die or not. We have no such choice
LikeLike
Submission to death is not nullification of death. Submission is acceptance that we have no choice and therefore we embrace death.
LikeLike
“All the progress we have made us a human society originated from our pain and suffering.”
I can’t disagree with that. If life were perfect, humans would be the most unhappy of animals – we thrive on reaching for the unattainable. “A man’s reach,” said Browning, “should exceed his grasp.“
LikeLike
Right! Imperfection or vicissitudes in life, then, is no proof that the cosmos is devoid of a benevolent being. Pain has its purpose, suffering has its purpose. Death also has its purpose. But we as mortals do not and cannot know everything.
This makes John Zande’s sub title “…Treatise on the Government of an Omnimalevolent Creator” sound funny and ironic and somewhat misplaced to me.
LikeLike
“Imperfection or vicissitudes in life, then, is no proof that the cosmos is devoid of a benevolent being.”
Certainly not in and of themselves, as I, myself, am one, having never in my life kicked children or other small animals. However I’m far from omnipotent and my talents in the area of creation seem to be restricted to procreation, having done a bit more than my fair share.
LikeLike
Procreation is the implicit primary function of our existence.
LikeLike
As is the case with all of life – it is our prime directive.
LikeLike
Much of human progress in technology has been to reduce pain and suffering but that’s not to say this benefit in any way, shape or fashion justifies designed pain and suffering of all sentient creatures. That’s supercilious hubris of the very worst kind.
LikeLike
He is master of hubris
LikeLike
Human efforts have consistently failed humanity. Whether pain benefits or not depends on how you look at pain. I don’t believe in “designed pain.” Consciousness is a long pathway and what initially caused us pain only becomes apparent and painless once we advance in our transcendental knowing. Ignorance and the “malignant demon” share a wall.
LikeLike
Those human efforts that consistently fail are the only recourse we have.
LikeLike
“Human efforts have consistently failed humanity.” – I would hardly call the eradication of Poliomyelitis a failure.
LikeLike
It is good to cure children of polio but I am speaking in relation to the larger scheme of things, like efforts at the the elimination of injustice, oppression, war and strife – efforts at world peace.
LikeLike
And while he is busy saying human effort has failed, what other does he have in mind?
LikeLike
Consciousness is a long pathway and what initially caused us pain only becomes apparent and painless once we advance in our transcendental knowing.
This magnified bullshit is not only factually wrong but condescending to those who have ongoing pain and suffering through no choice of their own. So, yes, if one believes in some kind of designing agency ‘created’ this universe,, then it is a belief that a prey/predator biosphere here on earth is predicated on suffering by design, by intention. And that’s just whacked. What you’re really doing is telling sentient creatures that they are at fault for not ‘advancing their transcendental knowing’ if they are suffering. This is the kind of victim-blaming bile that the pious are endlessly spewing without thought or care for their pernicious effects at the direct and imposed expense on others. If you had a modicum of compassion, you’d be ashamed of yourself.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I have compassion for the suffering but I’m not in charge of the larger scheme of things. I do not know the purpose of prey/predator relationships except to encourage victims to increase in knowledge so they can evade predators. All the solutions to our problems arrive first in the form of knowledge. But then again you are speaking of the beastly kingdom whereas I am speaking of human societies. The rules are quite different.
LikeLike
No, the rules are identical because we share the same physiology. You spout New Age platitudes about ‘knowledge’ and abuse the meaning of the term. Also, you put ‘suffering’ in some kind of parenthesis as if equivalent to ‘problems’. This is where you veer off the tract of rationality and enter the realm of pure woo. You have zero ‘knowledge’ about suffering except is in some rarefied meaning and so you arbitrarily and for your own metaphysical convenience separate the animal kingdom from the human. What you then come up with metaphysical nonsense disguised as if ‘wise’ when it is, upon examination, empty of any knowledge value but full to the brim of bullshit.
LikeLike
So what mental attitude do you suggest to those who suffer? That they must reject morality and all societal laws and believe nothing? That is hardly compassionate.
LikeLike
A good first step is to recognize that reality just is and accept it on its terms. Only then can one begin to cope with one’s place in reality. Not accepting reality but inserting some woo-laden make believe magical realm is the source of further suffering when it comes into conflict with reality. I see this happen all the time. For example, the assumption that religious belief – in the form of belief in some divine agency who supposedly can intervene to affect – provides comfort to the dying and those who love them, is patently false. More often than not, religious belief introduces more – not less – very real suffering at a time when most people are at their most vulnerable and reality is most present.
Why you would jump to the bizarre conclusion that I am suggesting one rejects morality (I have to say that I don’t even know what that really means) and all societal laws (what?) reveals something badly out of alignment first with your comprehension skills and secondly with your thinking ability.
LikeLike
Don’t raise your voice tildeb. Let’s focus on the arguments from the outset. At no point did I say people should not focus on reality. I am just saying your atheism will not eliminate pain just as my theism will not, but mine will make them happier. However, if death is what lies ahead, then they must willingly embrace it. Which part of this statement don’t you understand?
LikeLike
I am just saying your atheism will not eliminate pain just as my theism will not, but mine will make them happier.
And I’m telling you this assumption you make – and you’re not alone – is not true. In fact, a significant portion of those who come through Hospice are ill-served by such beliefs. Those most able and fastest to cope with such a prognosis and have the least amount of death angst are, without question, non believers. Those survivors with the deepest complex grief are, without question, the most pious of believers (especially Catholics). These are not hard and fast rules for all but they are the statistical and significant majority.
It is not atheism or non belief that is the causal factor for these better outcomes; it is due to the straight on approach of first accepting what reality says and then starting the adjustment period of the dying and death of a loved one and all that entails. No belief in some version of Oogity Boogity! is required or, in the least, helpful for the majority; rather, such beliefs usually and predominantly introduce more problems than they solve for all those involved with dying with dignity. Assuming otherwise is believing contrary to what reality shows us is the case. That you prefer to believe contrary to what reality demonstrates is true raises a rather interesting observation about which you respect more: reality or you beliefs about it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is this “reality” you speak of? Physicalism, as opposed to idealism or what? You will be shocked to know that your reality is somebody’s illusion.
LikeLike
What is reality? Seriously? Let me help you with the term:
re·al·i·ty
rēˈalədē/
noun
1: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
2: the state or quality of having existence or substance.
Reality, contrary to your mistaken beliefs about it, is not a possessive descriptor. It is a common – and commonly shared – noun independent of you or me and we can know about reality independent of your or my subjective perspectives about it. That’s how your cell phone works, you see. To suggest otherwise – that subjective beliefs describe aqnd define reality – is merely a common theistic word game to try to make wiggle room for presenting subjective perspectives and beliefs as if they were adduced from reality and independent of the person trying to misrepresent the term… as you are doing.
LikeLike
Your claim doesn’t hold. Theist and atheist alike suffer the same way. The theist has the additional baggage that their dead relative maybe spending time in hell. The theist in pain might think it is a punishment from her god. An atheist in pain knows this is the nature of the universe
LikeLike
The joy if theism far outweighs the “burden” thereof.
LikeLike
VP, believe what you will.
LikeLike
My friend when did you start telling people to disobey civil laws?
LikeLike
Beats me.
LikeLike
Physiology does not define everything.
LikeLike
Are you those who believe suffering is a virtue? So because we can’t know everything, you think some magical being must know all?
LikeLike
Suffering is not a virtue but it strengthens us.
When one is limited in knowing, one cannot conclude on what one does not know. So one cannot say: I have not experienced god nor seen god therefore god does not exist. By this you are extrapolating with your limited perception using insufficient facts.
Beyond ordinary perception one has only two options (not requiring reason), belief and non-belief. Period. That is why I say that God cannot be known but can only be believed in.
LikeLike
Well, maybe you could tell us what this god is to be believed in? You seem to think that spewing BS makes you sort of seem intelligent
LikeLike
If I completely knew who or what god is, I wouldn’t be a poet. I can only suggest that you forget about the material world and search for your own “god” within you.
LikeLike
Within me there is no god. There is matter modified in different ways
LikeLike
There is a “god” hidden in the matter within you. It’s like the electricity that powers and modifies the matter.
LikeLike
VP your vocabulary has gods, mine doesn’t except to say they are not explanatory
LikeLike
Perhaps the problem has to do with the way “god” was defined for us by early theologians. I don’t believe in an anthropomorphic god.
LikeLike
Tell me about the god you believe in
LikeLike
It is the driving “force” inherent in the cosmos – one who is all knowing but cannot be known. One who requires nothing of me except that I should lead a moral life for my own good.
LikeLike
VP – WHY do you need (a) god in order to lead a moral life for your own good? Why do you feel you need an invisible friend?
LikeLike
God is something within, therefore I am, in spiritual terms, an “extension” of god. I need not need him. God is the origin of the human conscience. In as much as we all have an inherent sense of right and wrong, we have a god within.
LikeLike
This, my friend, is the silly crap that keeps lowlife priests in business. The type of people that an ancient writer said we shall not be free till we see the last of them driven outta town
LikeLike
That ancient writer may be right or wrong. Man is something that must be surpassed, seek ye my brethren, the superman.
LikeLike
I have read Nietzsche and I am aware of his dream of the superman. But maybe you need to revisit thus spake Zarathustra to see what kind of man he speaks of
LikeLike
I have done that. Nietzsche practically understands the Bible (and even its spiritual application) better than any theologian I have ever read. By “superman” he was mistily referring to a higher being synonymous with what we call god.
LikeLike
Where in this do you see a remaking of a god?
LikeLike
Is that the whole book? The subject matter of “the superman” was discussed from beginning to end.
LikeLike
And it is nothing like godlike
LikeLike
In your OPINION, VP. Only in your opinion. Which is contrary to the opinion of most everyone else on this thread, I’d point out. 🙂
LikeLike
He has made it a virtue to believe in woo
LikeLike
My god is Curly Howard of the Three Stooges who often said: AAA..WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO! WOO!
LikeLike
Matter has in itself motion without help from outside.
Society and custom has taught you about moral life. Out of society, you would know nothing of morals
LikeLike
Life can only emerge from an already existing life. The motion in matter is not coming from outside.
LikeLike
What is your point? are you implying life was created?
LikeLike
The theory of abiogenesis would discount that statement.
LikeLike
To say god created life would imply god didn’t have life either.
LikeLike
“So one cannot say: I have not experienced god nor seen god therefore god does not exist.” – Agreed, but one can certainly say that until sufficient evidence is produced, it is justifiable to withhold belief.
LikeLike
Suffering is not a virtue but it strengthens us.
What an idiotic rationalization. Obviously, you’ve no experience with hospice care. Suffering, you’ll be surprised to learn for this population, tends to allow us and those we love to suffer. This is not an opportunity to learn; it’s an opportunity to suffer… before we die. Oh joy. Oh bliss. Oh rapture.
And on what basis do you presume to ‘know’ that my perception is limited and that you ‘know’ that is why I do not believe in gods or a god? Oh right… because you believe so. Aren’t you special! Demonstrate what constitutes this knowing so that I can follow your insight and understand how a compelling case can be made for gods or a god because from where I sit all you have offered so far is your faith-based belief that has produced a demonstrated callous hubris towards those who are experiencing real suffering and a condescending attitude towards those are not so willing as you to be gullible.
LikeLike
I maintain that short-lived misery offers an opportunity to learn. How else will I know if I have not been through it?
LikeLike
Short term misery is still misery and adds to the sense of suffering. Misery can occur for all kinds of reasons and dealing with some, to go back to the ludicrous notion that this is somehow ‘good’ for us because it produces some knowledge benefit, in no way justifies it. Trying to justify it this way is, as I said upthread remains supercilious hubris that directly allows for perniciousness to continue under the guise of virtue and permits victim-blaming to seem relevant. That’s why your approach is shameful.
LikeLike
Most suffering is self imposed. What you believe, you become.
LikeLike
Most suffering is in response to reality (and not made up). That runs the gamut from elevating the trivial to some level of stress-inducing discomfiture to excruciating and obliterating nerve pain. The physiological response is not self-produced. The key term you’re missing here is ‘response’ as in reacting on a physiological level. What you’re talking seems to me to be about is some version of metaphysical discomfort, some philosophical tension. What I’m talking about is real people in real physiological pain… even if the source may be seen as self-induced through psychopathology. Nevertheless, the suffering is still real in that the body responds neurochemically with all the same products and effects as any other physiological stimuli we call ‘pain’. Yes, we can train the brain to respond differently than with the various chemical cascades we associate with pain, but the blame game for who is causing what helps not at all. Learning different coping mechanisms and skills does, and this begins with acceptance of reality as it is independent of our beliefs about it. You are peddling full-on woo, in that you say we become what we believe. No matter how much you want to believe you are a rabbit, you are not. The belief-myth – that belief has the power to define and describe reality – is a lie. This is the very definition of delusional thinking and you are promoting it as if it offers real solutions to real problems and mitigates real suffering. It doesn’t. It compounds it. That is why I continue to say you are advocating for more not less suffering and you should be ashamed of yourself.
LikeLike
Psychologically, whatever you believe and hold dear has a huge influence on you and becomes your reality. This is basically what am saying.
Ok good! You work in some king of hospice. You are the “good” guy – helping people cope with pain. Physiological pain is worse than anything and there is no escape except through atheism. Or, that people should live in despair because there no god or purpose for life. Is that the alternative you are offering? I bet this line of thinking will send patients to their grave faster than a bullet train.
You guys keep getting it all wrong. I’m not wooing anyone to my god. I’m just saying one must have faith in something – delusional or not. That’s all.
LikeLike
“…that people should live in despair because there no god or purpose for life. Is that the alternative you are offering?”
So false hope is better? Sounds like you’re in the snake oil business.
LikeLike
He has always said something to the same effect.
LikeLike
What good has chronic despair done? O, I forgot, it tells people to commit suicide.
LikeLike
What is wrong with suicide?
LikeLike
It inspires gloom and is offensive to life.
LikeLike
So you think dying ridiculously is somewhat a virtue but killing oneself is offensive to life
LikeLike
Suddenly you escalated ‘despair’ to ‘chronic despair’ – smooth subtle move, worthy of a snake oil salesman. I’ve seen no evidence of any gods in the universe and I don’t believe that life has any purpose except for that which we bring to it, yet I not only do not live in despair, I certainly don’t live in ‘chronic despair’. Why would I be better off living a delusion?
LikeLike
I’ll admit I’m confused as to how accepting that there is no god, could possibly result in despair. Or for that matter, that there is no purpose for life – it seems to me that would bring relief, as it would eliminate one’s need to try to live up to unrealistic expectations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One person who is rarely confused- this must be very confusing lo
LikeLike
Your unrealistic expectation is somebody’s realistic expectation.
LikeLike
And I am saying, if people were aware death was the end and it is not as bad as their pastors make it out to be, they would seek its relief more than they do now
LikeLike
If he read from the stoics who believed pain was in the mind, when one of them was in pain, all the philosophy was naught. They had to seek help
LikeLike
Have you met a godcultist without hubris?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wasn’t there an 80’s band called Hubris Lewis and The News?
LikeLike
Spreading something called ‘The Power o’ Flove’, whatever that is, I believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You two. . shake head, shake head . . 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“One cannot say I was created by God, God is in charge of the universe, therefore it’s God’s duty to make me happy,” but one can say I don’t believe in god, and get on with alleviating suffering and finding meaning in life itself. The very notion of ‘god’ is simply unnecessary to it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well said. Adding god to the statement adds no value
LikeLike
One’s belief or non belief in God or gods does not change the nature of God or gods, not even the cosmos. It ‘s strictly a matter of opinion and one is free as long as one plays one’s preternatural or natural role. I do mine, you do yours (according to our genes). What you belief changes nothing except you.
LikeLiked by 1 person