Raf

I always heard: Philosophy gives you questions that cannot be answered. Religion gives you answers that cannot be questioned.

GoldStar is out of here. And if he tries to log in as someone else, we'll figure it out in no time and he'll be gone again.

I used to think that atheism was an overreaction to leaving The Way. In my case, it was a good long time between leaving TWI and rejecting theism, so I doubt very much that it can be categorized as "the psyche swinging the balance back the other way." I'm not saying that's impossible. I'm saying I don't see where the shoe fits in my particular case. For those reading who think this post may seem a little redundant, please check the time stamps. It's been two YEARS since I posted on this thread, so I'm not going to take for granted that folks are scrolling back. Nor am I particularly concerned about whether I'm consistent in my phrasing. People change in the way in which they articulate their positions. That said, to this day I entertain questions about whether atheism is a religion. Some questioners are benign and genuinely curious. Others are hostile and antagonistic. Most can't seem to grasp the idea that a government can actually be neutral about matters of faith. Neutrality about religion = hostility toward all religions except one, namely atheism. It's just not true, though. For government to embrace atheism, government would have to say flat out there is no God. I do not want agents of the government making such statements in their official capacities. It is not only disrespectful -- it can all too easily lead to depriving people of their constitutional rights. Atheism is a single answer to a single question: do you believe in gods? No. THAT'S LITERALLY IT. From there, an atheist can adopt any of thousands of philosophies or worldviews. They can be humanists, nihilists, anarchists, socialists, capitalists, racists, Buddhists (to a large extent) modernists, postmodernists, dentists, are you still reading this, and if so why. I think when most people make the claim that atheism is a religion, what they really mean is that non-theistic humanism is a religion. They're wrong. But they're not that wrong. Non-theistic humanism is a lot of things: a worldview, a philosophy, an approach to life. But it lacks the key ingredient that makes a religion: a belief in the supernatural. Rambling. Gonna get some sleep and tackle the rest at a later date. Do allow me to say, however, that the above post by chockfull is excellent.

I never got over Macho Grande.

I enjoyed the time loop episode of Legends of Tomorrow. Not feeling Black Panther. I may binge when I get a chance. Not caught up on Punisher or Jessica Jones. I am over Damien Darkh. Enough!

Real Genius!

Mark your calendars, everyone: March 5, 2019 is the Second Annual Chockfull Agreed With Raf Day!

There is nothing in that verse or context that indicates this is a negative trait. Rather, it is included in a list of POSITIVE traits about Job, to show just how devoted he was to God. To turn that into a display of fear on Job's part is a Wierwillian lie. The text does not support that interpretation. You have to inject a negative meaning into what the author of Job was indicating as a positive trait.

The notion that Job was guilty of "negative believing" is Wierwillian fantasy, utterly absent from the Book of Job unless you want to make the wailing cries of a man who lost his family into doctrine.

I thought that was tailor-made for word wolf, but you are correct.

My point, by the way, was not to make an accurate statement about Buddhism but to demonstrate that we tend to treat the claims of other religions with more skepticism than the claims of our own. Elijah ascended to heaven in a chariot of fire. Jesus ascended with no vehicle at all. Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse. Well, that third claim is just silly.

Okeydoke... One of the main characters in this popular, comedic action movie seriously contemplates suicide. The actor did such a good job with that scene that he was offered the role of another classic character who also famously contemplates suicide. He did it. That is, the actor took the role. Neither character committed suicide, but one of them didn't survive until closing credits. The other stayed alive through three sequels. Name the popular, comedic action movie, and the classic character (also the name of the second movie).

Hang on. I think I just had a stroke. j/k

But Moving Right Along is straight up Muppet Movie.

Pretty sure they rode bicycles in The Great Muppet Caper.

How much ungodly fruit does TWI have to bear before you recognize it was an ungodly tree?

No one bought that, eh?

I've always felt it was more About the Way than it was doctrinal, but it's off topic here either way. ;)

Okay, so my exploration about the nature of evil is a direct consequence of my opposition to the opening quote of this thread ("the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he does not exist"). If the devil doesn't exist, how do we explain evil? And who gets to decide what is or is not evil? So that's why I thought my comments were on topic at the time. But I do recognize that others may see it as an expansion of the original topic. In any event, Chockfull still asks some great questions here that deserve an answer. With your permission, I'll take a crack at it. "If evil can be objectively measured, it is by a standard. What is that standard?" Excellent question, but you only explored half of it. The fundamentalist will say "God's Word." Actually, the fundamentalist will say the Bible, but the more spiritual might say "God's Word" without necessarily restricting that term to the Bible. I know, hard to imagine "God's Word" and "The Bible" being two different things, but most of Christianity has held that position for hundreds and hundreds of years. I won't get into the inadequacy of the Bible as a standard for determining what is good and what is evil because I believe that concept is explored in quite a bit of detail on another thread. That thread, however, does not explore the concept of evil. It takes for granted that we all agree slavery is evil, executing someone for a petty crime (like breaking the sabbath) is evil, and punishing a rapist by forcing him to marry the woman he raped is evil. But the question of what makes those things evil is not explored. What we do see on that thread is an argument that I was being a little less than fair because "it was another time." "Different laws for different cultures" was literally the opening of the very first reply, as though that is even remotely relevant. How can we argue that it's NOT "OK to rape, pillage, torture, kill, as long as it is a stranger tribe" if "different laws for different cultures" is an adequate response to the nature of evil. So we're going to agree here that... ...is inadequate. My moral code does not determine what is good or evil. Neither does yours or anyone else's. Neither does the Bible's. Good and evil are subjective by definition. But that does not mean their basis has to be. If we can agree on a sound basis for determining good and evil, then we can independently reach identical conclusions regardless of our backgrounds, cultures, historical time periods, etc. We won't always agree, but he areas in which we disagree can be narrowed down significantly. Every culture ever agrees that murder is wrong. But they do not agree on what constitutes murder. Is abortion murder? Is it murder to kill in self-defense? Is it murder to kill as punishment for violating a law against sabbath breaking? Against stealing? Against rape? Against murder? Different cultures disagree. But everyone agrees murder is wrong. Stealing. Every culture agrees it's wrong. Rape. Most cultures agree it's wrong (I'm being deliberately obtuse here. I want to say "every," but I don't want to presume). You get the idea. What do all these things have in common? They all objectively cause harm to people, and causing harm to people is NOT a matter of opinion. So I'm going to propose, in a simplistic way, that "good" is our way of describing those acts which benefit society or at least do society no harm, while "evil" is our way of pointing out those actions that harm individuals or society. We can explore this basis of determining good and evil, and we can refine it, but people of good will can likely agree that if I'm harming people with no justification, I'm committing evil. None of this requires a god to define good or a devil to personify evil. It requires people to hold themselves and each other accountable for their actions and their motives. And it gives us an objective basis to judge outside ourselves without the interference of a deity or a god's law. That's why I flinch at the concept of a devil. Blaming him for the presence of evil is a failure to accept responsibility for the things we do. In my opinion.

Fascinating.

Before I answer or attempt to answer the excellent questions you raise, let me ask you this. Are you allowing me in this discussion to expand the parameters of the thread you started? And are you allowing Bolshevik the same privilege to expand the topic in the direction that he wants to expand it? The second answer will determine my future responses to his posts.

Now, if you take for granted that Moses wrote Numbers, then what you have here is Moses calling himself more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth. Which I suppose can be written off as hyperbole. I mean, really, no one more humble? Yuhrite. But I submit that qualifies as self-referential greatness. [This, of course, evaporates when you realize Moses probably didn't write Numbers, if he existed at all. But that is another story.

That was easy, though. The "little three" were faked. Anyone can do it. [Everyone did, coff coff]

You were redefining commonly accepted terms for the specific purpose of derailing the conversation to what you want it to be rather than what it was. I sought clarity from the person who asked the question just to be sure, and was validated. So with all due respect, which admittedly is not much, the troll is the person trying to derail the thread, not the one trying to prevent that from happening.