Atheist Fanatics

[crusader]

Atheism arises mainly from the brains tendency for duality.

Religions doctrines are 'dumbed-down' to cater for the average human being (ie not too bright) to comprehend, they do not in any way represent the sheer brilliance, subtlety and sophistication of what God really is.

Consequently those of above average intellect either ignore, or actively reject religion, and adopt the opposing view by default, Which is atheism. It's unfortunate, but causal in nature. Nothing can change that stark fact.

With a sufficient amount of thought and reflection, it's possible for one stuck in the atheist mindset to find a way back to God, it requires bypassing religion, and using ones own intellect and emotions to understand what God is at a level which is acceptable to ones own standards.

well said, prince. God's subtelty is what gives atheists the most grief. in a world of instant information, humans are adapting and have become less able to tolerate and grasp the basic truths that make us what we are. they want clear and concrete answers to questions they do not even understand. like petulant kids on Youtube, they froth at the mouth and snap at those who have an enlightened knowledge of existence. these enlightened people are Christian; they see the world and love it for what it is. they let their minds be open to His will.

but i do not agree with you, that one should "bypass" religion to find God. This is absurd. how can one find his way without a map?

[Robert]

but i do not agree with you, that one should "bypass" religion to find God. This is absurd. how can one find his way without a map?

A map's utility is in showing you where you are, where you're not and where you want to be. Once you get there, you have no more use for it. The problem is, a map can be wrong and not represent the landscape as it truly is, leading to confusion and misdirection in the reader (especially if you're a woman... ).

When I think of this map analogy and religion, "Here be dragons" springs to mind.

[Blair]

but i do not agree with you, that one should "bypass" religion to find God. This is absurd. how can one find his way without a map?

Bypass by way of experiencing. If you find yourself not liking religion.

The path to God is only within you anyway. it is entirely inside you.

[DHodges]

I don't (generally) hate Christians but I do hate the disease called Christianity. Here are some reasons why.

It is based on lies and is historically inaccurate.
There are plenty of instances in the Bible of things that just didn’t happen. It’s pretty likely that there never was a “Jesus” as described in the Bible, and the whole thing was made up a few decades afterwards. (For more information on this, see, for instance the movie, “The God that Wasn’t There.”)

It is hypocritical and inconsistent
The Bible is full of contradictions. Christians pull out the parts that support what they want to support, and ignore the other parts. Contradictions in the Bible are easily found on the web and there is no reason to repeat them here. (For example, see http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm).

It is immoral and attacks the basis of true morality.
Christianity is based on the idea of obedience. Morality is defined obedience to (the will of) God. This denies the ability of people to decide morality for themselves. True morality is doing what you know to be right, not what you are told is right.

Morality in Christianity is based as punishment (hell) and reward (heaven). This is not morality for adults, it is how you teach children. To say that this is how real morality works is, in my view, deeply immoral.

It’s completely stupid
Consider the basic story of Christianity. God splits off a part of himself to come to earth, so that he can sacrifice himself to himself to save humanity. He sacrifices himself by dying, only he doesn’t really die and goes back to heaven.

It’s just a dumb story that doesn’t really make any sense.

Worships death and glorifies sacrifice
Go into any church and what will you see? A cross - the symbol of torture, death and sacrifice.

Teaches hate and bigotry
Oh yes it does. See the Westboro Baptist Church for an example. See http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html for a few examples from the bible. Christianity also has a lot to answer for, when it comes to the Crusades and the Inquisitions.

The whole “fish” thing
This is probably a US-specific thing. Christians put a fish on the back of their car. In the phone book, some businesses have a fish symbol in their advertisement. The implication is that it is better to patronize businesses that are run by Christians.

Christians are ignorant
In order to believe the whole Christian spiel, Christians must deliberately, willfully keep themselves ignorant of everything that contradicts it, as well as the contradictions within it.

Christians are also good at swallowing whole things that are absolute nonsense, and take this as a good thing. Consider, for instance, believing that 3=1 (the doctrine of the Trinity) or that a cracker is actually Jesus (the Eucharist, within Catholicism). Being able to swallow these things is, in Christianity a good thing. They call it faith.

Christians are stupid
Well, Christianity is stupid. Does that mean that all Christians are stupid? The fact is that I have known some people who are Christians, who in fact demonstrate very high intelligence in other parts of their lives.

But in this area of their lives, they put away their intelligence. They don’t use it. When it comes to these things, they are stupid - and deliberately so.

There are no “true Christians”
Ah, you say, but that’s just the church. That’s not “true” Christianity.

This is exactly the “no true Scotsman” fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

If someone calls themselves a Christian, they are declaring that the accept Christianity. There are major differences between different sects, but there is also a lot of common ground. If you don’t accept that common ground, then you should not call yourself a Christian. That is simply a lie.

It’s true that there are a large number of people who call themselves Christians that are pretty much just lying. They do it because Christianity is socially acceptable; they don’t really put a lot of thought into it. I would call them nominal Christians, and they are mostly harmless. They don’t let religion interfere with their lives – it’s just a sort of background mythology.


Here is an example of an American Christian.

[Talking Ass]

[Prince! I'm so proud of you! That post of yours, on page one, was actually sort of intelligent! Bravo! Hallelujah!]

[Robert]

A Christian writing to me in an email recently, after going back and forward for a while over evolutionary science:

I now understand where you are coming from and going towards for that matter. In my vain hope I suppose I was trying to challenge you enough for you to see that God is real and not just a distant theory. That He loves you and Christ died for your sins and salvation is yours if you will accept Him. I was hoping that you would see the light not for me but for your self I am already saved why would I need to bother. I never intended to get you to believe what I believe (God forbid I hate clones) but only acknowledge the truth and find God in your own way, perhaps one day you will. Sorry if you felt that I was barraging you but consider this. I know there is an eternal hell to shun. What would you do if you knew this was true and someone you care a lot about was heading in that direction? Surely you would persist, surely you would try all ways.  But you are right it is your life and it seems that you are solid in your decision. I realise there is nothing I can do as far as arguments sake to help you. But I will pray for you that's my decision:)

Ironically, he says he hates clones.

[Atum]

The higher a thing can rise, the further it can fall. That is a concise explanation of all the more absurd branches of Christianity.

Here it true Christianity (Orthodox), as preserved since the Apostles:

http://www.deathtotheworld.com/seraphimrose/index.html

[Talking Ass]

Esteemed colleague Atum,

In keeping with the spirit of the times I wish to say, Assalamu Alaikum, may peace be upon you my human brother. I am honestly curious---and I admit readily there have been instances of dishonest curiousity on my part---what exactly interests you in the teachings or religious path of Seraphim Rose? I assume this is the path you follow? I don't have time right now to read the whole site, but I thought you might be willing to express what you find important in it. What is your personal history in respect to this path? How do you interpret Jesus? What do you do? And what don't you do? What distinguishes your path? How could this path benefit me? Finally, what do you really and truthfully think of donkeys, mules and asses?

A photo of a cousin of mine, he said the experience changed his life. He'd never seen the world from that height and it, for him, was an eye-opener.

[Talking Ass]

Robert: "A map's utility is in showing you where you are, where you're not and where you want to be. Once you get there, you have no more use for it. The problem is, a map can be wrong and not represent the landscape as it truly is, leading to confusion and misdirection in the reader".

It is likely that you will admit that, in any and all instances, we depend on 'maps'. You are not at all unfamiliar with the notion of a 'map' in respect to things spiritual, though you must certainly have your unique understanding, different from others and likely different from my own. Yet, you possess a map. Would you agree? I assume you would (though, as they say, 'to assume makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'). Clearly, you imply, if you don't state it outrightly, that your 'map' is superior to some who have recently appeared on this forum, as well as the Christian with whom you were engaged with in dialogue. Now, I do understand the limitations of 'typical Christians' who are, pretty often, a little annoying. In my own searching though I have come across other Christians who have a pretty sophisticated understanding and with whom it is very easy to speak. In any case, what interests me is your assumption that you have a better map. But, each and every map is distinct, and no map can be said to be perfect. Or, do you think there is a perfect map? Also, when we use the word 'map' in this context (religious, spiritual life), to what are we really referring? Guiding concepts? Cosmology? Metaphysics? On what basis can you be sure that you have the better?

Parable:

A pig, a sheep and a dog were walking on one of life's perilous roads, and as each one walked, silently and to themselves, each was thinking: "Oh these poor animals my companions, so misguided, they do not really understand where we are or where we are going. If only they had my level of understanding! But they won't listen to me! They only want to preach!" Suddenly, the Spaghetti Monster appeared in the sky in a B-24A Intergalactic Space Cruiser. He saw the 3 wandering animals and said unto himself: Lo, my fork is ready at hand and it's tines are sharp, but these 3 wandering animals are not yet succulent enough, and so I will not sprinkle Heavenly Parmesan on them and gobble them up, and I will pass them by.

A lovely piece of artwork

[Atum]

Keep God (the invisible, the formless, the absolute) in you heart (consciousness) at all times whatever insofar as you are able.

Offer up your life to God as a living sacrifice.

--

Talking Ass, if you are interested in becoming a Christian, you should know that animal sacrifices were so last Testament. Nowadays, God accepts only a human sacrifice.

[Talking Ass]

What makes you think that I am not a Christian? You are aware, aren't you, that you are making many judgments about people who write here which are mistaken? People's positions here are far more nuanced than you seem aware. (I am not necessarily saying that I am a Christian, or that I'm not, I am only saying that you don't quite know who the people are who write here, so your judgments are far off the mark. It leads to rather silly dialogue).

[Atum]

Why don't you just be honest. Are you Jewish?

[Talking Ass]

Is it my nose that tipped you off?

[Robert]

Clearly, you imply, if you don't state it outrightly, that your 'map' is superior to some who have recently appeared on this forum, as well as the Christian with whom you were engaged with in dialogue.

Why do you bray that I'm implying I have a superior map, did I imply that I have a map at all?
God is the only cartographer of interest. Are you too asinine to see this? Of course...

Let's not push this map analogy too much. GPS is 'where it's at' nowadays.

And how long have you been wanting to make that tired 'to assume makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me' joke? Geez. Your schtick stinks, probably as much as your shitty donkey arse.

[Atum]

Is it my nose that tipped you off?

Guess again.

[Talking Ass]

Why do you bray that I'm implying I have a superior map, did I imply that I have a map at all?

Simple. Everyone has a 'map', a description of reality, a grasp of their place in that reality, and a plan of how to move from A to B, and through life, etc. You most certainly have a 'map', friend. There is no living person, and few dead ones, who don't have a 'map'. It is a very good idea to 'push the analogy' of the 'map'. I can't think of anything more essential.

Are you too asinine to see this?

That and so many other things. It's an afflicted condition, mine.

[Talking Ass]

Guess again.

My labyrinthian, Talmudic mind? The way I wield my Haggadah? The mezuzah on the stable door-post?

[Robert]

It is a very good idea to 'push the analogy' of the 'map'. I can't think of anything more essential.

To my understanding, in the analogy, the original poster (crusader) was speaking about religion, of how it's a map to find God ("how can one find his way without a map?"). Like a lot of people, I've never had religion, never had a map, in order to find God.

Taking this anaolgy to mean that everyone has a map as a description of reality is limiting and problematic, in my view. In a superficial, practical sense it works, like an agenda or a weekly planner you try and organise whatever you need to do to get to where you want to go etc, but in an intimate and ultimate sense is it of much use? How could you possibly have use for a map in a reality where infinite causes will have infinite effects outside of your control? A map suggests a fixed, unchanging objective representation of reality, which has it's own difficulties, the least being that we have a hard time agreeing on what that is exactly (if anything), since reality is not fixed and constantly changing.

In French, map translates as 'un plan'. To have plans is a better way, in my mind, to think ahead. It implies strategy, apprehension, adaptation and flexibility. A map is fixed, contained, has boundaries and is a scaled down version of somewhere, anywhere, nowhere.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It is likely that you will admit that, in any and all instances, we depend on 'maps'.

The question is not if we use maps, the question should be if the existential map we use still relates to any territory at all or is just a fantasy treasure map, a playfoal calendar to amuse ourselves until we die.

"Today abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal". (Baudrillard, Simulacra & Simulation, 1994, p. 1)

[Talking Ass]

And though what you say is true, at least on the surface, one must note that since there are many billions of different people, and each of them is a subjective, fallible, fragile and essentially misinformed creature---how ever could we assume there will be uniformity of view? And, considering this, whatever might be 'correct view'? There is not one 'real world' but a multitude of real worlds. To quote myself: "The 'real world---what is it? The 'real world'---it isn't" ( ©2009 The Talking Ass)

What you are really saying, Diebert, is that you have decided that you need to revise your maps, to make them commensurate with your understanding of things. Intellectually, as a cartographer of the modern, you have selected from a group of scientific and materialistic notions about the cosmos, and likely cobbled this together with your own set of personal fictions. It seems to me essential that we understand to what extent we are invested in fictions, literal fictions, which fictions are comparable with the fictions of others, those we laugh at---those archaeological, mythical fictions from the graveyard of human history.

I was thinking about the 'heresy of Manichaeism', and that at one time it was one of the most widespread religions (world-ordering maps) of the world. I have often had the impression that QRS were operating under a pretty rigid ideology, and I wondered what really informed it. See, I think that our ordering of this world, our existence, our 'psychological existence', arises in us not exclusively from our thinking mind (all that comes later anyway), but from a far more basic, cellular and somatic 'sense' of where we are. I suppose the first impression likely develop and get imprinted in the womb, and this 'womb-consciousness' is brought with us into the greater 'womb' of our terrestrial life. The same facts apply: however it came about we have been provided with a space, a platform, a realm in which we carry on. For as long as we are in this realm we have no choice but to 'feel into it' to understand what it is and what it means.

Like a lot of people, I've never had religion, never had a map, in order to find God.

Have you written, Robert, about your experience and understanding of God? I try to read your posts, and have read most of them, but I think I may have missed this part, or maybe you haven't included it? There is also the possibility that you interpret God like QRS, which puts it in a questionable light indeed. (David, in the end, is an utter mystic and is in his own category; Dan is a sort of blathering ninny on word-junk; and Kevin? Kevin is sort of mysterious to me. When I see him in my 'mind's eye' I see a guy in a disordered house tinkering with a hard-drive and there is piles of electronic gear stacked all over the place. But I have high hopes for him).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

And though what you say is true, at least on the surface

Ah, but the surface never contains any truth! It would stop being surface!

To quote myself: "The 'real world---what is it? The 'real world'---it isn't"

Beginner's philosophy indeed: the 'world' is never real, that's why there are billions of opinions forming different bubbles, quite naturally. The world is not supposed to be "real".

Intellectually, as a cartographer of the modern, you have selected from a group of scientific and materialistic notions about the cosmos, and likely cobbled this together with your own set of personal fictions.

It was more about asking questions like: "what do you mean with personal fiction, as opposed to what?" or another question: "are there differences between all these cartographic notions, not only quality wise, but are there notions that are not about anything in the first place, that is: disconnected and yet still thriving, feeding on something?".

I have often had the impression that QRS were operating under a pretty rigid ideology, and I wondered what really informed it.

While there might still be some ideological left-overs troubling their operation, the overall underlying theme should be clear by now: there's no way one can ever gather certainty about any thing at all, any idea, any notion or experience. It's a bitter pill to swallow for those in search for something consistent or some law of the universe we can then debate or preach.

There's but one element left, the so-called absolute which manifests without relying on anything personal, anything cultural or possibly fictional. Anything what, like P.K. Dick wrote: "doesn't go away" after destroying or letting go all else. It's the principle of consciousness itself which remains and with it comes the trinity of identity, causality and awareness.

Now you can ask: how do we know that's real. It seems the ultimate self-referential feat, the long leap of logic: it's ultimately the only way reality can be defined as without defeating the arguments. And it's therefore defined as: unchanging, unchallengeable, undoubted, "untouched", etc. This is where all religions unite and it should be very simple to see why it has to be this way.

[Robert]

Have you written, Robert, about your experience and understanding of God?

A pantheistic view, essentially. Nature = God. It doesn't really matter what you call it in the end (although I do like the idea of using the word as a reclamation from those who have subverted it's meaning).

[Atum]

Pantheism is just philosophy du jour. Sanitized atheism.

[Robert]

Pantheism is just philosophy du jour. Sanitized atheism.

I am very handsome, I know God pretty well.

[Talking Ass]

A pantheistic view, essentially. Nature = God. It doesn't really matter what you call it in the end (although I do like the idea of using the word as a reclamation from those who have subverted it's meaning).

Right. That is more or less what I thought. It is also pretty much the standard QRS-fare. (If I 'intuit' correctly that is).

As a result of the scientific and rationalistic movement we have seen the old metaphysics crumble, pretty much. The whole linguistic construct upon which metaphysics and cosmology was built has been so successfully undermined that it more or less tumbled down. What we are left with, or what we find ourselves in, is a tumbled down ruin of garbled ideas, metaphors that no longer function, and a whole vocabulary that we are forced to use---we find ourselves using it unconsciously---but which no longer refers to a 'real' that we know, recognize or can use. I think this is what the Baudrillard reference was about.

What religious believers tend to do is a few things. Some of them avoid the whole modern problem simply by never exposing themselves to it. Ignorance is bliss. They never fully grasp the problem, and why the problem is deeply relevant (the scientific world view vs. a 'primitive cosmology'), so they never really have any contact with the conflict. In that cocoon-like state they can remain for an eternity, safe and protected. Or, on another extreme, you have those who, for whatever reason, and with no good reason (dismissing 'reasonability') take an existential leap-of-faith. It is pretty clear that you know nothing about this (faith, prayer, etc.), it is not interesting to you at all. I would wager that you'd have little to say about it except to describe it in QRS terms: delirium, madness, giving over to the non-rational, steps downward, etc.

To have a 'God' that is like the Christian God is to believe in something that simply cannot be. An utter impossibility. An irrational distortion. The Christian 'decision' if it can be called that, is looking more and more like a sort of schizophrenia tending toward psychosis. And there are plenty of 'believers' who really look and act schizophrenic and psychotic(like). But there is another category, I think: a very clear and sharp sort of Christian religiosity which is really not all that religious, and spiritual doesn't have so much meaning (as it can't, given the modern problem). What distinguishes them is the way they approach life, the things (persons and things) they value. They are completely capable and interested in doing away with stupid, misleading priests and always keeping them under s strict watch. They aren't locked into antiquated ideas about God or the Bible but only want to focus on the most important essence.

But, for many there is some part of themselves, some core experience, some seed or essence of the core of their own selves, that remains 'loyal' to a God that is not at all the God of Nature, not the sum-total of the physical stuff surrounding us. It is a God (apparently) who beckons to us through 'sophisticated gestures' that are subjective and from 'beyond' this material manifestation. It only happens on an inner lever or is heralded by quirky life-events, and only to an individual. Since the language-structure that had supported a religious and theistic cosmology is now inoperative, a problem arises. What language to use? How to describe what happens in my consciousness, in my awareness, but which is unprovable in any materialistic sense? It's a real problem.

Many people nowadays just look at the Bible (one among numerous scriptures) and go "huh?" (I think Hodges is in this category). It looks absurd, and there are no 'markers' in it that they can relate to. It looks like madness. And the typical Bible-thumpers are indeed an absurd problem. Its like they are captured by something---something demonic!

We have such unusual and difficult problems to get through. The issue of 'maps' becomes even more relevant.