Have You Always Believed As You Do Now?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Wrong - of course Atheists believe in a “God” - there is something you worship, pay homage to, sacrifice for, etc. You cannot escape this. The only difference is, those who are Theists aren’t deceiving themselves. [/quote]

How is it deceiving yourself to have core values like love that you sincerely try to follow in your life?

This statement represents the kind of judgmental attitude that I think is degrading to discussions about religious beliefs. If agnostics/atheists can recognize the sincerity of your beliefs, can you in turn recognize the sincerity of ours? I don’t agree with your beliefs, but I don’t claim that you are deceiving yourself. [/quote]

So-called “Atheists” deceive themselves in pretending that they don’t worship a God - it may be unwitting, subconscious worship, but it’s still worshipping something; both a practice and a “something” that they cannot justify or verify “scientifically.” There are no Atheists, really.

Agnostics deceives themselves in pretending that a decision to not believe in God is not a decision not to believe in God.

As far as “judgemental” - don’t be fucktard. This thread is filled with judgemental comments regarding religion.

42

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
So-called “Atheists” deceive themselves in pretending that they don’t worship a God - it may be unwitting, subconscious worship, but it’s still worshipping something; both a practice and a “something” that they cannot justify or verify “scientifically.” There are no Atheists, really.

Agnostics deceives themselves in pretending that a decision to not believe in God is not a decision not to believe in God.

As far as “judgemental” - don’t be fucktard. This thread is filled with judgemental comments regarding religion. [/quote]

Why are you equating values with worshiping a supernatural deity? It’s possible to have moral values without believing in a higher power. The two are not synonymous.

Take a step back and ask yourself if you’re being judgmental of others’ beliefs. Do you feel justified in that because others are judgmental of your beliefs? If people weren’t judgmental of you, would you grant them the same tolerance?

43

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
So-called “Atheists” deceive themselves in pretending that they don’t worship a God - it may be unwitting, subconscious worship, but it’s still worshipping something; both a practice and a “something” that they cannot justify or verify “scientifically.” There are no Atheists, really.

Agnostics deceives themselves in pretending that a decision to not believe in God is not a decision not to believe in God.

As far as “judgemental” - don’t be fucktard. This thread is filled with judgemental comments regarding religion. [/quote]

Why are you equating values with worshiping a supernatural deity? It’s possible to have moral values without believing in a higher power. The two are not synonymous.[/quote]

Your the only one who is equating values with worshipping a deity.

Just because you pulled that bizarre equation right out of your big ol’ gaping asshole doesn’t mean it has anything to do whatsoever with me.

Sorry, I don’t buy the cloying language about being non-judgemental, for a number of reasons.

  1. it’s extremely important to be judgemental; it’s called using your brain; discerning what is right and wrong, good and evil, etc.

  2. OTOH, people can profess to being non-judgemental all they want; in reality there’s no such thing as a “nonjudgemental” person. The only time you’ll ever see one is in a hospital for coma.

The word “tolerance” is another one of those sickly, cloying words that is much abused.

44

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Your the only one who is equating values with worshipping a deity.[/quote]

Then explain your statement:

You’re claiming that everyone worships a “God”. However, you can only make such a claim if you broaden the definition of “God” to include “moral values”, and exclude the belief in a supernatural deity as a necessary component.

You’re actually saying that everyone follows some kind of moral code, which for the most part is correct. My point is that you can follow a moral code without believing in a supernatural being.

Atheists are people who have a moral code that is internally derived, rather than being dictated by the belief in a supernatural entity. The difference is in the source of the morality, not in the morality itself.

Sounds to me like you’re rationalizing your judgmental attitude by claiming that everyone else is as judgmental as you.

You’re wrong about that. I fully respect your right to believe whatever makes sense to you. I have no desire whatsoever to change your beliefs. I only draw the line when you try to impose your beliefs on my life. As long as you follow your own path and let others do the same, I have no beef with you.

Can you say the same?

45

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Your the only one who is equating values with worshipping a deity.[/quote]

Then explain your statement:

You’re claiming that everyone worships a “God”. However, you can only make such a claim if you broaden the definition of “God” to include “moral values”, and exclude the belief in a supernatural deity as a necessary component.

You’re actually saying that everyone follows some kind of moral code, which for the most part is correct. My point is that you can follow a moral code without believing in a supernatural being.

Atheists are people who have a moral code that is internally derived, rather than being dictated by the belief in a supernatural entity. The difference is in the source of the morality, not in the morality itself.[/quote]

You are still and totally missing the point. I don’t have the time or inclination to disentangle the above confusion. Let me just ask you a question, what is the most important thing in your life. Answer, please, in no more than a few sentences.

[quote]Sounds to me like you’re rationalizing your judgmental attitude by claiming that everyone else is as judgmental as you.

You’re wrong about that. I fully respect your right to believe whatever makes sense to you. I have no desire whatsoever to change your beliefs. I only draw the line when you try to impose your beliefs on my life. As long as you follow your own path and let others do the same, I have no beef with you.

Can you say the same?[/quote]

Nope. And neither can you. There are “judgements” throughout your statement there^^

If my fellow man is in error, I tell him. If he’s walking towards a cliff, I stop him. It’s called love.

46

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
You are still and totally missing the point. I don’t have the time or inclination to disentangle the above confusion. Let me just ask you a question, what is the most important thing in your life. Answer, please, in no more than a few sentences.[/quote]

Love, courage, and truth.

[quote]Nope. And neither can you. There are “judgements” throughout your statement there^^

If my fellow man is in error, I tell him. If he’s walking towards a cliff, I stop him. It’s called love.
[/quote]

It’s not real love if you impose your own beliefs on others, while ignoring their unique needs, values, and desires. The Inquisition could be labeled “love”, but surely you can see the error in that.

I don’t expect you to believe as I do. Why do you expect me to believe as you do?

47

[quote]forlife wrote:
Love, courage, and truth.
[/quote]

And the most important is?

48

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Love, courage, and truth.
[/quote]

And the most important is?[/quote]

All are important, but if I had to choose one I would say love.

49

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Love, courage, and truth.
[/quote]

And the most important is?[/quote]

All are important, but if I had to choose one I would say love.[/quote]

Fair enough. Now, love for what?

50

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Fair enough. Now, love for what? [/quote]

Foremost, love for people. Love for anything else is fine, but only if it doesn’t hurt people in the process.

51

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Fair enough. Now, love for what? [/quote]

Foremost, love for people. [/quote]

Okay. All people? Or just some people?

52

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Okay. All people? Or just some people? [/quote]

All people, although those for whom you have responsibility take priority in the event of a conflict.

53

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Okay. All people? Or just some people? [/quote]

All people, although those for whom you have responsibility take priority in the event of a conflict.[/quote]

Okay, now let’s take stock of where we are so far.

First, you say that the “most important thing” to you is love.

Then, you say it’s not really love, it’s people.

So, I guess we’re getting somewhere :wink:

However, I suggest we pause before proceeding: are you really going to tell me with a straight face (which I cannot see) that the “most important thing” to you is MANKIND? Even Mother Teresa did not love MANKIND.

Do you want to stick with “all people”?

54

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Okay, now let’s take stock of where we are so far.

First, you say that the “most important thing” to you is love.

Then, you say it’s not really love, it’s people.

So, I guess we’re getting somewhere :wink:

However, I suggest we pause before proceeding: are you really going to tell me with a straight face (which I cannot see) that the “most important thing” to you is MANKIND? Even Mother Teresa did not love MANKIND.

Do you want to stick with “all people”?
[/quote]

As I just said, love for mankind is important, in a general sense. However, I think loving the people for whom you are directly responsible takes priority in the event of a conflict. For example, if given the choice between saving your life and saving the life of my son, I will save the life of my son. But given the choice between saving your life and being indifferent, I would save your life.

55

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Okay, now let’s take stock of where we are so far.

First, you say that the “most important thing” to you is love.

Then, you say it’s not really love, it’s people.

So, I guess we’re getting somewhere :wink:

However, I suggest we pause before proceeding: are you really going to tell me with a straight face (which I cannot see) that the “most important thing” to you is MANKIND? Even Mother Teresa did not love MANKIND.

Do you want to stick with “all people”?
[/quote]

As I just said, love for mankind is important, in a general sense. However, I think loving the people for whom you are directly responsible takes priority in the event of a conflict. For example, if given the choice between saving your life and saving the life of my son, I will save the life of my son. But given the choice between saving your life and being indifferent, I would save your life.[/quote]

So, love - in your mind - is just a passive, latent thing you lug out once in a while when there’s some theoretical (re: non-existent) conflict?

^^ THIS is how you describe, what you previously called, “the most important thing” in your life?

You’re more confused than I even thought. But I’m patient. :slight_smile:

56

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
So, love - in your mind - is just a passive, latent thing you lug out once in a while when there’s some theoretical (re: non-existent) conflict?

^^ THIS is how you describe, what you previously called, “the most important thing” in your life?

You’re more confused than I even thought. But I’m patient. :)[/quote]

WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about love being passive or latent. I see it as a very active attribute, that I try to apply on a daily basis.

If you want to have a real discussion, I’m all for it. But if you’re trying to set up strawmen just to make yourself look better, let’s not waste one another’s time.

57

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
So, love - in your mind - is just a passive, latent thing you lug out once in a while when there’s some theoretical (re: non-existent) conflict?

^^ THIS is how you describe, what you previously called, “the most important thing” in your life?

You’re more confused than I even thought. But I’m patient. :)[/quote]

WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about love being passive or latent. I see it as a very active attribute, that I try to apply on a daily basis.

If you want to have a real discussion, I’m all for it. But if you’re trying to set up strawmen just to make yourself look better, let’s not waste one another’s time.[/quote]

I’m just going by your own description - sorry if I misread your words.

So, you have a very active conception of love. That’s good because my next question is: whom do you love and how?

58

It’s not rocket science. I love my partner, I love my children, I love my parents and siblings. That is the immediate and most important circle. More broadly, I try to love my friends, my associates, and the people I interact with on a daily basis. Love covers a whole range of actions, from giving your life for someone to resisting the temptation to flip off the guy that just pulled ahead of you on the freeway.

Basically, it’s trying to help others find happiness in their life, or at least not to hurt others while you find your own happiness.

59

[quote]forlife wrote:
It’s not rocket science. I love my partner, I love my children, I love my parents and siblings. That is the immediate and most important circle. More broadly, I try to love my friends, my associates, and the people I interact with on a daily basis. Love covers a whole range of actions, from giving your life for someone to resisting the temptation to flip off the guy that just pulled ahead of you on the freeway.

Basically, it’s trying to help others find happiness in their life, or at least not to hurt others while you find your own happiness.[/quote]

The original question was “what is the most important thing in your life.”

This “thing” - whatever it is - would not only be your first waking thought; not only gets you out of bed and give you a reason for living; it quite literally comes before everything else; it is something for which you make huge sacrifices for without even thinking about it; it animates and informs your entire life, your day, your very hour, even right now. et cetera.

First, you said it was “love.” Then, realizing that love must have an object to be real, you said “people.” Now, realizing that an abstraction - “people” - cannot be loved, your throw about a bunch of people that you come into contact with, some of whom you express love actively, some not.

How exactly this comes under “the most important thing” in your life is a bit of a mystery to me.

So, there are two possibilities as I see it:

  1. That your every waking moment is, in fact, consumed by actively loving a whole shifting, menagerie of people in your midst.

That you are a kind of gay Mother Theresa; indeed, you can think of nothing else than loving your fellow man, attending to their needs, soothing their afflictions, comforting their sorrow, feeding their hunger, etc.

This really doesn’t even pass the giggle test.

  1. That “love for people” is not really what animates your life at all.

However, you thought it would sound groovy to make a claim to such a thing.

And that, in fact, despite your words, your actions (which obviously I’m not privy to) show that something else is your “most important thing.”

60

You asked about the most important thing in my life, and I told you. The vast majority of moral systems agree that love is the most important thing in life, so you’re not just quibbling with me.

I never claimed to be a perfectly loving person. Nobody is perfect in aligning his life with his values.